[Last Visible Dog]

Then I question Wells' grasp of the concept of what constitutes evidence to the same degree and in the same way that you challenge stands2reason's grasp of the English language, and expect the same rules of what does and does not constitute a "personal attack" to apply equally.

You really don't get it. Even if you don't agree, it is still evidence. The point is he did provide evidence therefore you are not allowed to be intellectually lazy (or dishonest) and claim he provided no evidence. As for the "personal attack" rambling - it does not make sense - try again.

[tacticalogic]

You really don't get it. Even if you don't agree, it is still evidence. The point is he did provide evidence therefore you are not allowed to be intellectually lazy (or dishonest) and claim he provided no evidence. As for the "personal attack" rambling - it does not make sense - try again.

That he presents it as evidence does not make it so. There are objective criteria for what does and does not constitute evidence. As far as I'm concerned if it doesn't meet those criteria then it isn't evidence. Deal with it.