SOLVED!!! The Freud/Dinky dichotomy.

[Bricktop]

Your memory misfiring again.



I have done so. More than once.



Case closed, Corky.

[Frood]

You have made accusations and demanded I prove them wrong to you. That's all you've done.

[Bricktop]

Mmmm....need that memory checked.



I provided clear evidence. I asked you direct questions based on factual reports.



You ignored it.



This troll is boring as fuck.

[Frood]

You confuse accusations with evidence, you befuddled old tosser.

[Bricktop]

Evidence; first hand knowledge, articles and implements relative to the crime, or circumstantial evidence that corroborates a fact.



RW stated privately and in the forum that you spoke with her on Skype after the group chat, and admitted being Freud, and that your presence was some infantile attempt to antagonise me.



Is she lying?

[Bricktop]

Silence is telling...

[Frood]

Evidence; first hand knowledge, articles and implements relative to the crime, or circumstantial evidence that corroborates a fact.



RW stated privately and in the forum that you spoke with her on Skype after the group chat, and admitted being Freud, and that your presence was some infantile attempt to antagonise me.



Is she lying?

Accusation are not proof.

Silence is telling...

Silence is not proof.





See how it works, dumb dumb?

[Angry White Male]

Dinky, it's time to give it up!



Just admit you are a man, most likely of Abo descent, and then just smooth the wave and ride with it...

[Frood]

That would be false and dishonest of me. I'm not a liar or cop.

[Bricktop]

Silence is not proof.

For one who has much to say about law and order, you know very little about the evidentiary value of "silence". Things have changed much.



"People will be warned that they may risk harming their defence in court if they refuse to give police information about a crime under proposed new laws.



The caution police now give is: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so, but whatever you say or do may be used in evidence. Do you understand?"



This will be changed to: "You are not obliged to say or do anything unless you wish to do so. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on in court. Anything you do say and do may be given in evidence. Do you understand?"



Thus, if you decline to answer the question, you essentially forfeit the defence you try to raise in court.



Put another way, the court may now INFER from your refusal to offer a response that you are concealing evidence.



So, is RW lying when she states you admitted to her you are Freud in another alter, and that your presence here is intended to be an irritant specifically targetted at me?



THAT'S how it works, chump.

[Frood]

I don't care if the Western right to remain silent has been whittled down and viewed as an indicator of guilt by lawmakers, barristers, and shit for brains cops.



You make the accusations, the onus is on you to prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt. My job is to do whatever I care to as I have no involvement with your ridiculousness and paranoia.



Ultimately you can't prove anything you've maintained so that makes you the loser (besides your general loserness of course).  ac_hithere

[Bricktop]

Again, you lose.



As you know, on the internet you don't have to prove anything.



You just have to make people believe...and you have failed spectacularly.



Again.

[Frood]

ac_toofunny



Typical deadbeat shitbag cop think. If it can't be proven in a court of law or logic, go for the court of opinion as proof!



 

[Anonymous]

Yayyyyyyyyyyy!!! now we cooking with fires

[Anonymous]

https://s18.postimg.org/u0fxlw9tl/2018021422201899813_1518608340764.png">