That's just a paragraph and a half of white noise derived from dodging my request for proof.
Read your last post > "I love it when people say "there's no evidence" because then I know that they are talking total rubbish!"
I can say with confidence he hasn't breached the public order act so therefore I can safely claim there's no evidence that he had. Which I did. You are now claiming/pretending to know that it's rubbish. It's a crack up how you're so busy trying to bait me that you're not seeing the double standards in your replies.
Even if one has complete confidence that a particular event did not occur, the conclusion that one " can safely claim there's no evidence" remains unsound.
It occurs to me that a person might easily arrive at a similarly erroneous conclusion by neglecting to consider some important distinctions between the meanings of the words "evidence","effect", and"proof".
Consider the enormity of the task of actually demonstrating the "non existence of evidence" for any humanly conceivable event (irrespective of actual occurrence or lack thereof).
Now consider just how little evidence would be required for invalidation of that same assertion!
One meek sliver of evidence, even if it were of the lowliest calibre and issued from a distrusted source, would be all it would take to render totally invalid the "there's no evidence" claim!
It could be just one person's testimony to having witnessed the event! Even if further testimonies, featuring irreconcilable differences were to emerge, all testimonies, no matter how discordant, would still qualify as forms of evidence!!.
What I am trying to highlight here, is that evidence can, and often does exist, independently of the truth of the concept it evidences.
Anyway, do you seriously believe your own conduct in this discourse, to have been so exemplary, as to be beyond reproach?
I seem to recall being asked to prove you wrong, however, I suspect that you are disinterested in such proofs. Anyhow, for reasons of practicability, I seldom acceed to requests for proof, outside of the confines of mathematics.
Perhaps a better understanding of what I definitely am, and definitely am not saying, might have been derived spending just a little more time to openly considering the content, of that which you dismissed, as evasion derived white noise!
No evidence has been produced and until it is it remains non existent. If you are offering a challenge to that - the onus is on you to prove your assertions.
Why is the onus upon me? I have yet to see you prove all of your assertions!
As it happens, there is a logical fault in the above "No evidence" assertion, rendering it unsound, and as such, easily challenged.
Please note that the following two statements are not synonymous:
(i) Evidence is presented
(ii) Evidence exists
Now consider the following:
If (i) is true then (ii) must also be true.
If (ii) is false then (i) must also be false.
However, when (i) is false, (ii) may be true, or it may be false.
And when (ii) is true, (i) may be true, or it may be false.
A statement akin to "No evidence exists until evidence is presented", has, by neglecting to consider the full range of logically valid possibilities, incorrectly asserted that:
(ii) cannot be true until (i) becomes true
So unless one is intending to exploit the presence of an ambiguity, courtesy of the word "produce", and suggest that this word was somehow intended to be synonymous with "create", rather than "present", I can confidently state that I have effectively challenged the "no evidence exists until evidence is presented" assertion, via demonstration of the inherently faulty application of logic embedded within same.