You didn't say that... you said:
<<"Direct quote", doesn't mean much in the way of evidence. I can quote all sorts of false things if I care to do so.
Much of the way of evidence for your claim.
I didn't mean that it wasn't ever significant evidence, but I will say now that usually it isn't. Its not zero evidence, but it is hearsay. It relies on the original person quoted accurately understanding the facts, honestly relating them, the quoter getting them correctly (which may not happen even if its a first hand quote and becomes less likely if it was passed on through others), and then reporting them honestly and accurately.
Look at it this way. If you or I say "X", that often isn't much evidence for X. A quote is at least one level removed from the initial statement so its even weaker as evidence.
Now if the quote is detailed, coherent, directly relevant to the claim, then it may be something to take seriously, but it wasn't in this case.
I provided evidence that the president of a Catholic University saw hatred by the group at Notre Dame... PERIOD.
No you provided no such evidence. You didn't even provide a claim from the president about hate groups. The president didn't use the term or identify any hate group, or allege any connection to a hate group.
Implying clearly there was (maybe, you can't even admit that) one hateful person there...
Implying that there may (or may not) be ONE hateful person there.
One person isn't "a group". A snarl isn't enough to determine "hateful person", and even the presence of such a group (about which no evidence, or even direct accusation has been provided), doesn't imply "throwing in with". |
