>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by

>You are intentionally being disingenuous, now, because you're upset. I think curious is the appropriate word to describe my mental state. HN is populated by people who should be able to think fairly logically-- I would assume more logically than the general population. I understand why you made the false claim originally, and why you have chosen to characterize me in a derogatory fashion at every turn, including this last missive. What I cannot fathom is why you feel so compelled to prevent productive discussion that you would impeach your own integrity with a lie? Or why, having never supported that lie, failed to provide even a single quote from my post showing me giving legal advice? Or why, having had this refuted repeatedly you are sticking to your guns. Surely an understanding of logic must compel you to recognize that you cannot provide any evidence of me giving legal advice, let alone attaching liability to myself. I think its hilarious that your thesis has that lawyers can say "this is not legal advice" as a disclaimer but non-lawyers cannot. But maybe I'm wrong? If you're right, you should be able to provide evidence. You have never done so, as you have never done so for any of your claims. Again where you have an opportunity pursuade me by providing evidence you choose not to. Hell, even if I rejected that evidence you could have more confidence in your own position. Why have you not even meet such a low bar for evidence as that, yet you feel comfortable characterizing me? I am having to guess that you are not equipped to engage in logical debate. I'm curious as to why this is, and why this seems to not be uncommon on HN. I don't observe this phenomena among people of my age group. ---- Responding to your deleted response: Here's what you actually said: " you just wrote an essay full of legal advice, including conclusions on how the proceedings will go" All of which is false. Making your claim that the disclaimer is toothless irrelevant. Further, post hoc ergo proctor hoc.