This is probably on the correct board, though there's nothing personal in it.

Please, please, practice being able to distinguish between a fact, or set of facts, and the implications which arise therefrom. They are two completely different issues.

Argue with the implication, that's fair and reasonable. (I think some of you did a pretty good job of that. Some didn't, and good ol' eb, he mostly sticks to the "ad hominem" stuff. Ya gotta like him, though, to be honest. Always read him.)

Please don't argue with the fact. The fact can be true and the implication erroneous.

I used to be an investigator, both for private industry and the State in which I live. Attorneys absolutely love people who will try to deny a fact because of an implication. They tear those people to shreds, and easily discredit them in front of juries. Attorneys work hard to set up those situations, and some make a very good living because they can do it.

A jury will see that an implication is not necessarily accurate, but will not forgive someone trying to deny an obvious fact. In that case juries start to believe that those people have an agenda they are pursuing no matter what, and will discredit everything they say.

Arf