direct question: despite my obvious exhibition that you've indeed supported my characterization of your argument, what else supports your claim that i have consistently misrepresented what you've put forward?
i don't need to twist anything that you've said to lay my argument against it. i don't want to, either. i argue that i haven't done so and that your insistence in claiming that this has gone on is a lie of yours.
substantiate it.
I refer you back to the discussion from which you lifted the quote. That is my substantiation. And you affirmed it with your statement "but you've said all that already, Foxfyre."