> or do you think that stating them without answers will make readers assume the answers are both obvious and supportive of the case you're making? Yes? There

> or do you think that stating them without answers will make readers assume the answers are both obvious and supportive of the case you're making? Yes? There is no allegation that the BBC called anyone a penis. I don’t have proof that i can cite because how do you proove a negative? I can prove that there are media who called a German politican corrupt.[1] I cannot prove that they haven’t raided them, all I can say is that if they did we haven’t heard about it. > You haven't said anything to be wrong about. And yet you understood me, didn’t you? 1: totally random article calling one german politican corrupt https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-conservative-politician-alfred-sauter-bribery-accusations/amp/ https://www.politico.eu/article/germany-conservative-politic...