Bloomberg Spends $764,232.35 Buying Oregon Background Check Bill

[jimmy the one]

34. shannon 'sez so' is an assertion

I wrote: You asserted several times that the Shannon@_shannonwatts address is valid.

beevul wrote: No assertion I made ever specifically addressed anything about the address being a valid one or not.

You did make an assertion that the link was valid by a subsequent comment, your post 32 on this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=156114


beevul, referring to Shannon's above 'tweet': "Well, they do want to take your guns though, Shannon sez so."

You asserted that 'Shannon sez so', thus you must have believed the address in the Shannon 'tweet' is valid. Or are you now backtracking & concede you might have been wrong?
You've also asserted it's validity directly or indirectly several times elsewhere.

What are you doing anyway? acknowledging that the Shannon@_shannonwatts link might indeed be bogus? You must adhere to it being 'valid' for your argument to make any sense whatsoever. You contradict yourself.
(Shannon's valid tweet address is apparently Shannon@shannonwatts).