Aha! I think I figured it out! You made a totally unsupported statement, without any real purpose, called it a contention (rather than some other thesaurus-derived synonym), and it resulted in 100-odd posts!
Take two statements.
A is non-falsifiable.
Evidence contrary to A is being suppressed.
They clearly contradict each other. Both cannot be true. If A is non-falsifiable, there can be no contrary evidence. If there is contrary evidence, A is falsifiable.
Saying they are both contentions for the purpose of argument when they were stated back to back in the same very short paragraph is a lame attempt to backtrack to repair a mistake and save face.
"Saying they are both contentions for the purpose of argument when they were stated back to back in the same very short paragraph is a lame attempt to backtrack to repair a mistake and save face."
He acts as if *contention* is somehow different than *claim* or *statement* or *argument* in this context. Or that because an assertion doesn't need to have evidence to support it to be called an assertion that this means that any old assertion is as good as any other. It's really very postmodernist of him.