He may have inferred from your tone a common algorithm:
1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis.
2. Ask for sources.
3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources.
4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile.
5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.
>Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis.
A block of text of potentially real, potentially fabricated dates and events without any clarifying text doesn't really fit this description.
I mean, if we want to throw arguments into algorithms I can just as easily point to:
1. Throw out dubious claims and/or unrelated/incorrect facts 2. Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value 3. Resist any attempts at clarification of argument 4. Claim opponent is disingenuous and declare victory.
What? No, I don't understand what he said. It was a list of dates and events that I don't know are true or accurate, without any context of why he commented them. I was referring to you when I said
>Claim dishonesty when claims are not accepted on face value
I made no claim that I wish you accepted at face value. So as far as i understand, you must be referring to bills claim. Otherwise, to which claim are you referring?
Assuming it is bills claim to ehich you refer, if you don't understand the context, how can it be a claim?
1. Ask to clarify meaning when the meaning requires only superficial analysis. 2. Ask for sources. 3. Dispute illegitimate sources, while clarifying which sources are acceptable, without ability to see bias in "legitimate" sources. 4. Await response, assuming it will be hostile. 5. Respond with other hostile algorithm.