To repeat:

I'm not asking much. I'm only asking that you be willing to call a spade a spade if I can demonstrate it is a spade. That actually seems to me to be no risk. If I can't, I can't, and if I'm right I'm just asking that you recognize reality. This probably belongs on the "Offtopic Board" by the way, though it is a current, real, live issue.

It seems to me we are in the position where you have to "call" me or just admit I'm right without calling me.

<Save it for the amateurs, pal. I don't commit to conclusions prior to the evidence.>

Where did I ask you to do this?

< Although I don't know enough about formal logic to put a name to this argument fallacy, I've seen this one before, and it goes something like this:

james: "Would you admit that there are alien ruins on the Moon if I show you absolute proof?"

The Dupe: "Absolute proof? Well, yeah, I suppose I would..."

james: "You would stake your reputation on it, if I showed you proof?"

Dupe: "Sure, okay. Why not?"

james presents a blurred picture of some booger on a negative of the Moon, a shot which he believes to his very marrow to be absolute proof.

james: "There, now you all can see that Mr. Dupe agrees with me that there are aliens on the Moon since I presented the proof."

Dupe: "Wait a minute, that's not real proof. That's a negative of the Moon with some kind of booger on it."

james: "HA! Trying to back out, eh?">

Obviously that's not "proof".

Now, what about the situation where there were incontrovertible facts and "Dupe" still avoided facts. I'm thinking of the situation where I presented 4 facts, THE TRUTH OF WHICH WERE DENIED, because the context in which they were presented implied a situation different from peoples political views. Wouldn't "james" want to avoid a situation where reality was denied, again, not because it wasn't reality but because the context didn't agree with prejudices?

<If you've got something solid, and the confidence that it's valid, post it. Otherwise, clam up about it. I have no problem recognizing reality, and neither do most of the others here.>

That's not true. You do better than most, and you were denying the previous set of facts as hard as anyone. Remember the chart which showed the US economy on the decline which was used to try to demonstrate the US economy wasn't the strongest in the world? I hadn't said it hadn't been stronger, I had said it was the strongest, and that was denied over and over.

<Your evidence will get as good a hearing here as anywhere.>

I don't think even you believe that. Look at the situation so far. Someone is saying I said Ashcroft is trying to shove something down "everyone's throat", and doesn't have the courage to admit I didn't, other people are saying I haven't offered any proof before I've even presented the argument. I have set this up so that the majority of posters of whom I'm aware can't agree with me. It's a psychological thing. And history is on my side. They have denied facts in the past.

I don't understand the reluctance. If I'm full of it, that will be clear. If I'm not, all I'm asking is that it be acknowledged.

Arf