I have always said that I would most likely support a third alternative implementation especially if it strikes a middle ground between these two extreme choices we have today.
No you haven't, but I don't have time to perform such unrewarding tasks as looking through your post history to prove it.
What you have indulged in is the same dishonest tactics as your fellow acolytes (straw man to open this exchange, stay classy), and the clear intent is to behave appallingly while feigning ignorance. You've constantly twisted logic, invented incoherent consequences, and just straight up saying things that are 100% contrary to observable, empirical facts. You literally just make it all up sometimes.
Yet you are the one presently using ad hominem against me. I did actually say this in the OP. What you have indulged in is the same dishonest tactics as your fellow acolytes (straw man to open this exchange, stay classy), and the clear intent is to behave appallingly while feigning ignorance. You've constantly twisted logic, invented incoherent consequences, and just straight up saying things that are 100% contrary to observable, empirical facts. You literally just make it all up sometimes.
What, the OP that you wrote the day before yesterday? (did you actually expect me to read it
)More distortion only proves my point:
your claim: "I have always said..."
the reality: "I changed my position to suit my argument (again) a day or two ago"