re: #721 Dan G.

Really? Her claim that the ethics is based on theft, when the provided evidence explicitly states trade, and the fact that she has done nothing to validate her previous claim?

Even if you were right on that point, your calling her a liar could only be justified if you knew that she knew differently than she said. But you don’t know any such thing - its an assumption you plucked out of the air.

So yes, really, your calling her a liar is bizarre and destroys any credibility you might have had with me in this argument.