quiet:
Quote:
|
Maybe not as well read as most here, but yes, I am literate. It should have been apparent to you that I am literate because I have written my comments down after reading the thread.
|
Apparently you aren't as literate as you make out, as you seem to be unable to comprehend complexities that even a 4 year old could grasp. Such as 'Not leaving immediately' does not necessarily = 'A refusal to leave'
Quote:
|
Hhmm...there seem to be a number of 'could have beens' in this. You wouldn't dare speculate, or make something up to make another poster look foolish, now would you? You were there, and know for a fact that he didn't refuse to leave the building, then?
|
I love how you construct a strawman in attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you misread the article.
No, I can't disprove that he refused to leave.
Irrelevant (and also a 'Shifting the Burden of Proof Fallacy').
The fact remains that merely because the student did not leave the premises immediately, is in no way an indication that he refused the request to leave. You made an absolute assertion based on questionable logic and faulty assumptions, and I called you on it.
In summary:
1. You have provided no evidence whatsoever that the student in question refused to leave the premises, as you originally claimed.
2. You drew definitive conclusions from an ambiguous statement. You assumed that merely because the student did not leave immediately, he refused to leave. I've pointed out that there are several alternative explainations as to why he did not immediately depart. Feel free to whine for 'proof', but until you put forward evidence of your own, I don't feel compelled to comply with your silly little demands.