That the scam as it has played out DOES NOT REQUIRE the existence of any causative agent, let alone a novel one, is a strong argument for non-existence is nonsense? You acknowledge it’s one big lie, no? Why the hand waving response, then?
That the scam as it has played out DOES NOT REQUIRE the existence of any causative agent, let alone a novel one, is a strong argument for non-existence is nonsense? You acknowledge it’s one big lie, no? Why the hand waving response, then?
That the scam as it has played out DOES NOT REQUIRE the existence of any causative agent, let alone a novel one, is a strong argument for non-existence is nonsense? You acknowledge it’s one big lie, no? Why the hand waving response, then?
The fact that something is not required is NOT evidence of its non-existence. We don't NEED you here, yet here you are, trying to distract.