Gotta Admit... I'm Pretty Baffled By The Split And Depth Of Feeling Re:The Assange/WikiLeaks Story

[AnotherMcIntosh]

97. Not at all. If you've been paying attention.

At post #9, you wrote, "I personally find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable."

In response, at #36, I wrote, "If you "find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable," do you have a link to first-hand stories from the "accuser" (or accusers) can be found?"

It is now obvious that you didn't "find the accuser's stories to be credible and believable," personally or otherwise, but that you found second-hand and/or third-hand stories to be credible and believable.

You cannot post a link to a credible, non-tabloid-type source, which contains first-hand stories from an "accuser" or "accusers."

To merely assert that second-hand stories are, in your view credible and believable, doesn't make them so. Nor does it make such second-hand interpretations "evidence."