Pickens throws the gaunlet down

[Thump553]

There is no chance in h*ll these clowns will pay up to Kerry. They will keep changing the rules, tossing in qualifiers, etc. The issues Kerry doesn't focue on they will claim are now proven. The downside to Kerry, and more importantly, to the Democratic Party, far outweighs any potential benefit from reviving this ugly chapter of Rovarian politics.
I can understand Kerry being outraged at the continuing slurs this political hack organization, but he is doing the Democratic Party no favor at all by reviving this issue from the grave. It's yesteday's news, let it go. And Kerry, please take a seat on the back bench, become an elder statesman and STFU.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Thump553
There is no chance in h*ll these clowns will pay up to Kerry. They will keep changing the rules, tossing in qualifiers, etc. The issues Kerry doesn't focue on they will claim are now proven. The downside to Kerry, and more importantly, to the Democratic Party, far outweighs any potential benefit from reviving this ugly chapter of Rovarian politics.
I can understand Kerry being outraged at the continuing slurs this political hack organization, but he is doing the Democratic Party no favor at all by reviving this issue from the grave. It's yesteday's news, let it go. And Kerry, please take a seat on the back bench, become an elder statesman and STFU.

All Kerry has to do is release his military records to make the Swifties look like complete bufoons. Sounds easy enough for a war hero to do in order to prove them all wrong.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.

Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.

Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.

Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?

Changing the rules? Pickens said that Kerry would have to disprove "even a single charge" by the Swiftboaters. What were the Swiftboater's charges? And how can Kerry disprove those charges? Why, he can provide his military records, as requested. That should put any questions to bed for sure. Surely John Kerry, Vietnam war hero, has nothing to hide?

Again, neither you or Pickens knows what Kerry will dispute yet both are already adding conditions. I'm curious how Pickens was expecting someone who is not Kerry to prove what the allegations by SVFT were false. Hmmm? It wasn't until Kerry accepted Pickens' challenge that Pickens knew he was out $1 million but instead of doing the honorable thing and paying up, he changes the offer.

With regard to the bolded statement, it was pointed out already pointed out three times that Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.

Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.

Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.

Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?

Changing the rules? Pickens said that Kerry would have to disprove "even a single charge" by the Swiftboaters. What were the Swiftboater's charges? And how can Kerry disprove those charges? Why, he can provide his military records, as requested. That should put any questions to bed for sure. Surely John Kerry, Vietnam war hero, has nothing to hide?

Again, neither you or Pickens knows what Kerry will dispute yet both are already adding conditions. I'm curious how Pickens was expecting someone who is not Kerry to prove what the allegations by SVFT were false. Hmmm? It wasn't until Kerry accepted Pickens' challenge that Pickens knew he was out $1 million but instead of doing the honorable thing and paying up, he changes the offer.

With regard to the bolded statement, it was pointed out already pointed out three times that Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970.

Well is Kerry disputes a charge how can it be unequivocally proven if he doesn't provide his military records to back up his claim?

Should we expect him to suddenly produce the magic hat?

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.

No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.

Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.

Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.

Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?

Changing the rules? Pickens said that Kerry would have to disprove "even a single charge" by the Swiftboaters. What were the Swiftboater's charges? And how can Kerry disprove those charges? Why, he can provide his military records, as requested. That should put any questions to bed for sure. Surely John Kerry, Vietnam war hero, has nothing to hide?

Again, neither you or Pickens knows what Kerry will dispute yet both are already adding conditions. I'm curious how Pickens was expecting someone who is not Kerry to prove what the allegations by SVFT were false. Hmmm? It wasn't until Kerry accepted Pickens' challenge that Pickens knew he was out $1 million but instead of doing the honorable thing and paying up, he changes the offer.

With regard to the bolded statement, it was pointed out already pointed out three times that Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970.

Well is Kerry disputes a charge how can it be unequivocally proven if he doesn't provide his military records to back up his claim?

Should we expect him to suddenly produce the magic hat?

If Kerry doesn't release ALL of his military record, journal, and tapes as requested by Pickens, regardless of whatever evidence Kerry provides, does it invalidate his claim?

 

[Stoneburner]

Again, let's do this point by point.

1. I criticized 1 source of yours for being a FRIEND OF BUSH
2. My source was BUSH"S own words! I had this very discussion with Profjohn.
3. YOUR LIES ARE OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY AT THIS POINT You read the book before the release but after you supposedly didn't read it when you heavily implied you did. And your explanation as to why you misstated your activity made no sense whatsoever.
4. You still haven't demonstrated any knowledge of the book itself
5. Read Mr. Rood's account I posted above THat's a man with eminent credibility.
5. Learn how to count.

 

[Stoneburner]

And chicken, how do you know that only kerry's military records will prove or disprove the charges? How do you know they are dispositive on the issue?


Did your publishing world friends provide you advance copies of kerry's war memoirs?

 

[spittledip]

If the soldiers who fought beside him testify positively in regard to his service, what more can one want? Kerry is a crap politician for sure, but that doesn't mean he was a crap soldier or officer. This is ridiculous.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: her209
I'm curious how Pickens was expecting someone who is not Kerry to prove what the allegations by SVFT were false.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: her209
I'm curious how Pickens was expecting someone who is not Kerry to prove what the allegations by SVFT were false.

He wasn't - it was simply pandering to the crowd to repeat the lie that the allegations were accurate, with a phony offer.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Again, let's do this point by point.

1. I criticized 1 source of yours for being a FRIEND OF BUSH
2. My source was BUSH"S own words! I had this very discussion with Profjohn.
3. YOUR LIES ARE OBVIOUS TO EVERYBODY AT THIS POINT You read the book before the release but after you supposedly didn't read it when you heavily implied you did. And your explanation as to why you misstated your activity made no sense whatsoever.
4. You still haven't demonstrated any knowledge of the book itself
5. Read Mr. Rood's account I posted above THat's a man with eminent credibility.
5. Learn how to count.

1) You imply that because a friend of Bush made this claim it must somehow be invalid. That's pure supposition on your part. Do you have any hard evidence that he is lying?
2) Bush also acknolwedged in his own words that he inquired about Palace Alert.
3) The only people my "lies" are obvious too are those who are ideologically opposed to me in here and seemingly can't tolerate someone having ideas that differ from their own. I"m certainly not the first perceived "righty" or "Bush apologist" in this place to receive this treatment from you and others and the entire character assasination routine is rather transparent as to its motive. It's a weak offensive mechanism you're trying to employ and it just doesn't work. So give up the practice and make an attempt to argue on the merits of an issue instead just broadly sliming your opposition.
4) I still haven't demonstrated knowledge of the book itself? Is that anything like you demonstrating knowledge of bi-sexual men?
5) When I want someoe to define what is and what is not credible you'll be about the last person I'll seek out.
7) What?

One more thing. I can take a lot of insults, but calling me an "attorney?" That was stepping way over the line.

 

[Stoneburner]

So now you nuance disappears from your lexicon ? You are a shameless hypocrite, as well as a bisexual deviant.

1. You can impeach a witness by showing prior relationships. You asking for hard witness is not only stupid as a matter of common sense, it's stupid as a matter of law since this is done constantly.

2. Here's where nuance comes in. First, he can claim he did, but do we believe him? You can claim you read a book before it was released but after you initially claimed you read it, doesn't mean you will be believed. Second, you can see bush's dates and facts were off when the interviewer asked him particulars about the palace programs' end date. Third, common sense says if you wanted to go to vietnam and didn't have any physical disabilities, you could damn well go to vietnam.

3. Let's take this back to Clinton. If clinton were in your position saying the crap you were saying , changing stories then inventing new ones to reconcile different stories, how would you react? You are full of shit and you think your clumsy evasions work on anybody except yourself

4. Another classic evasion. I asked you for VP's explanation of the claim she "recommended" her hubby. You have not provided it. You are a lying betch. Since you've had a day to provide it, you will not be given an opportunity to run to borders, browse through the book, and respond, or try to google your information like you do with everything. It's now ESTABLISHED you are a liar and never read the book. You've had more than enough time to prove otherwise.

5. Why don't you research the man yourself then Or disprove what he says in the article? Just because I engage in name calling doesn't mean I will let you slide on substance

 

[Arkaign]

*popcorn*

=D

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
So now you nuance disappears from your lexicon ? You are a shameless hypocrite, as well as a bisexual deviant.

1. You can impeach a witness by showing prior relationships. You asking for hard witness is not only stupid as a matter of common sense, it's stupid as a matter of law since this is done constantly.

2. Here's where nuance comes in. First, he can claim he did, but do we believe him? You can claim you read a book before it was released but after you initially claimed you read it, doesn't mean you will be believed. Second, you can see bush's dates and facts were off when the interviewer asked him particulars about the palace programs' end date. Third, common sense says if you wanted to go to vietnam and didn't have any physical disabilities, you could damn well go to vietnam.

3. Let's take this back to Clinton. If clinton were in your position saying the crap you were saying , changing stories then inventing new ones to reconcile different stories, how would you react? You are full of shit and you think your clumsy evasions work on anybody except yourself

4. Another classic evasion. I asked you for VP's explanation of the claim she "recommended" her hubby. You have not provided it. You are a lying betch. Since you've had a day to provide it, you will not be given an opportunity to run to borders, browse through the book, and respond, or try to google your information like you do with everything. It's now ESTABLISHED you are a liar and never read the book. You've had more than enough time to prove otherwise.

5. Why don't you research the man yourself then Or disprove what he says in the article? Just because I engage in name calling doesn't mean I will let you slide on substance

1) Since you insist that bias is reason to dismiss all I can claim that your own anti-Bush bias completely dismisses everything you say. You cannot possibly be fair and impartial in making any determination about him. I hate using simplistic arugments but it's your own rationale and since it IS simplistic maybe you can actually comprehend it?

2) You seem to think that what you personally believe in regard to Bush translates to any sort of truth or constitutes a fact. See 1) above.

3) Says the guy who still calls me a "bi-sexual deviant" even AFTER he was shown his own ass on that claim? lol. It's hilarious how you think you can wave your hand, claim something to be so, and that somehow automatically makes it true. I'd guess you're a college boy, probably second or third year, who now believes the world must bow down to his brilliance and edicts because everyone else is inferior to his intellectual greatness. Billious young punks like that are a dime a dozen.

4) You expect others to provide proof when you do not respond in kind. Not to mention your own lies. Your hypocritical behavior is a joke.

5) Substance? You have to have some yourself first. You don't. You imagine you do, but you're just a deluded dupe. btw, you don't determine anything about me. I'm not here to bow to your will, foolish little boy. Whatever gave that idea in the first place?

 

[Stoneburner]

1. Once again, nuance disappears. It's not so much a matter of nuance, really as it is common sense This the sort of right wing stupidity that has everybody confused as to what constitutes proof and bias. What you are saying is you can't believe anything an attorney says because they are advocating for a client. Problem is, the attorney builds a case based on evidence provided. How you could say something so stupid is beyond me. If I am basing my evidence on the record of other, and presenting it for review, that's entirely different then me providing actual testimony. My god you are a moron

2. That's not what I said at all. Since all you can do is google crap, why don't you run a search on removing your head from your lower intestine? You are the genius who is claiming "bush says he signed up for palace alert, therefore he must have!" I am saying he mentions it in that interview and it does not say anything unequivocally and he doesn't have his facts straight AND that it was in his self interest to pretend something. Then I argue based on common sense that if he wanted to go to vietnam he could have found a way It has nothing to do with what I think bush was thinking but what I think he is saying and not saying.

3. You are still lying about the Plame stuff, I may as well follow your example and refuse to admit mistakes. Of course, I made a mistake, you BLATANTLY LIED, so you have more to hide. But then again, MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP LYING???

4. More rampant stupidity! What am I supposed to provide evidence of? What did I lie about? You have this odd detachment between actual fact and language that cannot be explained by your conservatism alone. Couple this detachment with your childish and baffling insistence on lying when you are caught, I think you are a foreigner and english is not your first language. Where are you from? Eastern Europe maybe ?

5. I knew you wouldn't but it's amusing to see you avoid substantive debate. When you cant' get away with bald assertions based on flimsy evidence, you turn into a little brat It's amusing. So don't worry, I know you won't actually provide substance, I just love getting your explanation as to why. Far be it for you to make sense actually! However, you could actually address Rood's article, but you won't because you are a little bitch



I'm sorry this thread isn't going the way you want it to. In the future, if you want to continue posting on this forum, I suggest the following:

a) Stop lying
b) Stop continuing the lie when you are caught
c) Stop thinking people believe you know what you are talking about just because you ran a google search. This has gotten you in trouble many times.
d) UNDERSTAND BURDENS OF PROOF, IMPEACHING EVIDENCE, IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, LOGICAL FALLACIES, AND CREATING EQUIVALENCE WHERE NONE EXISTS. This is by far the most important lesson you must learn my foreign friend. You just asked me to provide evidence for an assertion when I made none


Follow these guidelines and maybe people will stop defecating on you in here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
1. Once again, nuance disappears. It's not so much a matter of nuance, really as it is common sense This the sort of right wing stupidity that has everybody confused as to what constitutes proof and bias. What you are saying is you can't believe anything an attorney says because they are advocating for a client. Problem is, the attorney builds a case based on evidence provided. How you could say something so stupid is beyond me. If I am basing my evidence on the record of other, and presenting it for review, that's entirely different then me providing actual testimony. My god you are a moron

2. That's not what I said at all. Since all you can do is google crap, why don't you run a search on removing your head from your lower intestine? You are the genius who is claiming "bush says he signed up for palace alert, therefore he must have!" I am saying he mentions it in that interview and it does not say anything unequivocally and he doesn't have his facts straight AND that it was in his self interest to pretend something. Then I argue based on common sense that if he wanted to go to vietnam he could have found a way It has nothing to do with what I think bush was thinking but what I think he is saying and not saying.

3. You are still lying about the Plame stuff, I may as well follow your example and refuse to admit mistakes. Of course, I made a mistake, you BLATANTLY LIED, so you have more to hide. But then again, MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP LYING???

4. More rampant stupidity! What am I supposed to provide evidence of? What did I lie about? You have this odd detachment between actual fact and language that cannot be explained by your conservatism alone. Couple this detachment with your childish and baffling insistence on lying when you are caught, I think you are a foreigner and english is not your first language. Where are you from? Eastern Europe maybe ?

5. I knew you wouldn't but it's amusing to see you avoid substantive debate. When you cant' get away with bald assertions based on flimsy evidence, you turn into a little brat It's amusing. So don't worry, I know you won't actually provide substance, I just love getting your explanation as to why. Far be it for you to make sense actually! However, you could actually address Rood's article, but you won't because you are a little bitch



I'm sorry this thread isn't going the way you want it to. In the future, if you want to continue posting on this forum, I suggest the following:

a) Stop lying
b) Stop continuing the lie when you are caught
c) Stop thinking people believe you know what you are talking about just because you ran a google search. This has gotten you in trouble many times.
d) UNDERSTAND BURDENS OF PROOF, IMPEACHING EVIDENCE, IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, LOGICAL FALLACIES, AND CREATING EQUIVALENCE WHERE NONE EXISTS. This is by far the most important lesson you must learn my foreign friend. You just asked me to provide evidence for an assertion when I made none


Follow these guidelines and maybe people will stop defecating on you in here.

This thread is going just fine. It's hilarious to see you get so worked up over little ol' me. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard in P&N. You smug college punks are a riot.

Substantive debate? Hilarious coming from you. Hey, when you've got something else besides speculation, lame accusations, weak assumptions, and bluster employed to overcompensate for your small penis, get back to me.

Thanks.

 

[Stoneburner]

I'll assume you are not denying you are a foreigner.

Keep making inapplicable general statements, you've been exposed once again my generic foreign friend.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
1. Once again, nuance disappears. It's not so much a matter of nuance, really as it is common sense This the sort of right wing stupidity that has everybody confused as to what constitutes proof and bias. What you are saying is you can't believe anything an attorney says because they are advocating for a client. Problem is, the attorney builds a case based on evidence provided. How you could say something so stupid is beyond me. If I am basing my evidence on the record of other, and presenting it for review, that's entirely different then me providing actual testimony. My god you are a moron

2. That's not what I said at all. Since all you can do is google crap, why don't you run a search on removing your head from your lower intestine? You are the genius who is claiming "bush says he signed up for palace alert, therefore he must have!" I am saying he mentions it in that interview and it does not say anything unequivocally and he doesn't have his facts straight AND that it was in his self interest to pretend something. Then I argue based on common sense that if he wanted to go to vietnam he could have found a way It has nothing to do with what I think bush was thinking but what I think he is saying and not saying.

3. You are still lying about the Plame stuff, I may as well follow your example and refuse to admit mistakes. Of course, I made a mistake, you BLATANTLY LIED, so you have more to hide. But then again, MAYBE YOU SHOULD STOP LYING???

4. More rampant stupidity! What am I supposed to provide evidence of? What did I lie about? You have this odd detachment between actual fact and language that cannot be explained by your conservatism alone. Couple this detachment with your childish and baffling insistence on lying when you are caught, I think you are a foreigner and english is not your first language. Where are you from? Eastern Europe maybe ?

5. I knew you wouldn't but it's amusing to see you avoid substantive debate. When you cant' get away with bald assertions based on flimsy evidence, you turn into a little brat It's amusing. So don't worry, I know you won't actually provide substance, I just love getting your explanation as to why. Far be it for you to make sense actually! However, you could actually address Rood's article, but you won't because you are a little bitch



I'm sorry this thread isn't going the way you want it to. In the future, if you want to continue posting on this forum, I suggest the following:

a) Stop lying
b) Stop continuing the lie when you are caught
c) Stop thinking people believe you know what you are talking about just because you ran a google search. This has gotten you in trouble many times.
d) UNDERSTAND BURDENS OF PROOF, IMPEACHING EVIDENCE, IMPEACHING CREDIBILITY, LOGICAL FALLACIES, AND CREATING EQUIVALENCE WHERE NONE EXISTS. This is by far the most important lesson you must learn my foreign friend. You just asked me to provide evidence for an assertion when I made none


Follow these guidelines and maybe people will stop defecating on you in here.

This thread is going just fine. It's hilarious to see you get so worked up over little ol' me. I don't think I've ever laughed so hard in P&N. You smug college punks are a riot.

Substantive debate? Hilarious coming from you. Hey, when you've got something else besides speculation, lame accusations, weak assumptions, and bluster employed to overcompensate for your small penis, get back to me.

Thanks.

I'm sorry, but I hope that's the last time I see the word 'penis' in P&N, and certainly from you. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'll assume you are not denying you are a foreigner.

Keep making inapplicable general statements, you've been exposed once again my generic foreign friend.

A foreigner? lol. No. Wrong once again, Stoner. Strike 10 on you.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I'm sorry, but I hope that's the last time I see the word 'penis' in P&N, and certainly from you. I'm sure I'm not alone here.

My apologies. Next time I'll use "johnson."

 

[Stoneburner]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'll assume you are not denying you are a foreigner.

Keep making inapplicable general statements, you've been exposed once again my generic foreign friend.

A foreigner? lol. No. Wrong once again, Stoner. Strike 10 on you.

Strike 10 on me? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming there was a good reason for your ignorance of logic BTW, you never answered, inter alia, where I made an assertion in this thread which required me to provide affirmative proof.

I also suggest you read Rood's article. Then you can tell me where it's incorrect.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I'll assume you are not denying you are a foreigner.

Keep making inapplicable general statements, you've been exposed once again my generic foreign friend.

A foreigner? lol. No. Wrong once again, Stoner. Strike 10 on you.

Strike 10 on me? I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming there was a good reason for your ignorance of logic

Highly unlikely. You simply made yet another another wrongheaded assumption.

BTW, you never answered, inter alia, where I made an assertion in this thread which required me to provide affirmative proof.

I also suggest you read Rood's article. Then you can tell me where it's incorrect.

Where did I assert the article was incorrect? I merely questioned the source, as you so frequently do. Please don't tell us that you apply different rules between yourself and everyone else in here.

 

[Stoneburner]

Once again, reading is fundamental. I never said you said the article was false, I was just asking for your feedback. ON the other hand, you claimed I made affirmative assertions without providing evidence, but can't tell me where.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Once again, reading is fundamental. I never said you said the article was false, I was just asking for your feedback. ON the other hand, you claimed I made affirmative assertions without providing evidence, but can't tell me where.

I didn't say "false."

Your words - I also suggest you read Rood's article. Then you can tell me where it's incorrect.

Yes, RIF. Once again you should take your own advice.

 

[Stoneburner]

So you assumed I was saying you thought the article was false even though I asked you to read it? Are you honestly this stupid?

IF I say, "read the article and tell me where you think it's wrong" how does that presuppose you've read it unless you already have a particular viewpoint about something you haven't read.... Oh I understand now

reading is fundamental. And please dont' claim that "false" "incorrect," and "wrong" are not interchangeable. Not only is that untrue, it'll be a new low for your weaseling ways.

Again, I asked you to read something because it was clear you hadn't read it, and then I asked you to tell me where it was false. How you take that to mean I was claiming you thought it was false without reading is typically idiotic of you .

Lastly, you still have to tell me where I made an assertion requiring affirmative evidence in this thread. Either address this in your next post OR admit you were wrong. You brought up burdens of proof, now it's time to show you know what' you're talking about. Maybe if you understood when the burden is placed on whom, this thread wouldn't be filled with me trying to educate you.