You are the one who responded to my respectful and logical comment by saying your work might be above my reading level (I know you don’t believe it is). It seems like I bruised your ego, which I did not mean to do. Maybe you bruised mine in return, but that was more deliberate.
Look at that comment of mine today. I kept saying I can’t help myself as if I was doing something wrong when I obviously wasn’t. I was already somewhat walking on eggshells because I got the impression (despite your repeated assertions) that you do not love being challenged and can be a bit stubborn. Yet you still got upset.
When I first came here and told you that the lead advance agent said she was the one who dived on Trump while the site agent said she was on the other side of the bleachers, that wasn’t good enough for you even though that alone (along with a review of the footage) proved you had it wrong. I had to dig through the transcripts again to find more and more proofs before you found the part about her going to the hospital and - to your credit - changed your opinion.
Then when it came to door 9 and 13 I felt I made a lot of good points that you didn’t address, yet you maintained your original position without solid proof for it. Only assumptions. You come across as very delicate by objecting to that term (and reacting the way you did). I read all of your arguments at the time and to this day believe they are full of assumptions. Do you want me to lie and say I don’t think that’s the case? I remember you (or someone here) saying you prefer some other term, like inference or something like that. Maybe this is semantics. My point is that you are not going by proof.
You INFER that the AAR is wrong when it says Nichol exited door 9 before the shooting to meet a patrol (because the AAR is not very reliable and you think the CNN and ABC articles and some other things override it). You infer the AAR would want to list Nichol exiting door 9 after the shooting on a slide in the first place, and infer they would describe it as him meeting a patrol - before the shooting - when he didn’t. You infer the word ‘the’ before the word ‘building’ in the ABC article is evidence against door 9.
You make many more ‘inferences’ that I described in that long comment I linked and I stand by all of it. These inferences are not good enough for me to accept that he opened door 13, even though I did and still do maintain that it is probable. I even added this which points towards door 13 because I am not attached to any position. I’m happy to concede it was in fact door 13 if I see strong evidence for it. So It's Back To First Principles - #4845 by chris-nolan
I’m not sure I want to flesh this out anymore (especially if it comes with conditions to spare your feelings when you were the first to be rude). I will simply take a look at your revised work when it is done and see if it addresses the objections I have made or has any new evidence.
“When you assume that I’m assuming”
You assume that I am assuming that you are assuming, when I think it is an inference at the very least. This is very accusatory and inflammatory and I really should not have responded at all! That was a joke but if you want to be offended by it, go for it. You can say I am making assumptions and I will simply explain why I don’t think I am.
Just fully caught up, and this all had me rolling! Thank you very much