It's clear now, you don't understand basic rhetoric!
OK, here's how its normally done:
Person1: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.
Person2: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.
Here's what happens in a BeeP thread:
BeeP: Makes wild-assed statement including generalities that are passed off as fact.
Other IWETHEYer: Refutes WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.
BeeP: Changes subject, interjects a varied and sublime mix of invective, red herrings and straw men, which purports to reinforce assertion that WAS is fact.
Other IWETHEYers: Tells BeeP to knock off red herrings, straw men and ignores invective; tells BeeP to get back on subject.
BeeP: Complains that Other IWETHEYer has changed subject when s/he refuted WAS with specific counterexample, thereby conclusively demonstrating WAS was, indeed, not a fact.
Rinse. Repeat.
Now that I understand how that peculiar variant of BeeP Rhetoric works, I (and others here) can be forwarned and forarmed.
