Besides, you aren't listening to what I say, only arguing about what you think I meant in one post and comparing it to what you think I meant in another, and calling me wrong.
I am responding to what you write, and if that's different from what you think, you need to get your thoughts and/or words better organized. For example, in the above quote, you seem to think that you are not contradicting yourself if the positions in question are in different posts. If that's not what you meant, then you made your statement unclear by bringing separate posts into it (and if it is what you meant, then you are simply wrong.)
Here's just one example:
The court's finding later may reverse this. If it does, then the court will have decided twice in opposite ways. Does that make court illogical as well?
The court system is not in a logical contradiction because it has not asserted the conjunction of the two positions. The lower court asserted one position, then the appeals court overrode it.
Exactly what I said. It is both, but separated by time or other distinction. The same facts will be found to be two opposite things. One at first glance (the lower court ruling that this article was about) and another can be found when more scrutiny is applied. Both are true. Both are correct.
It does not follow from my answer to your question that both judgments are correct. That would be a contradiction. In reality, at most one of these judgments is correct. Ultimately, it is by the rules of the court that the one from the higher court is chosen.
As for the sentence "The same facts will be found to be two opposite things", that's just gibberish. No-one could divine with any degree of certainty what you thought that meant.
Let me remind you of the original issue: Mysidia stated that the Snay's best option would have been to fabricate a story in which they never actually told the daughter about the settlement (implying that she guessed), and I pointed out that any such plan would have depended on the daughter never revealing that this was false. Your response was a non-sequitur on several grounds, not least because, as anyone who had read the exact wording of the article would know, and contrary to what you were assuming at that time, there is no doubt now that the daughter had been told that there was a favorable settlement, a fact that makes any speculation over whether she guessed both irrelevant and factually mistaken. The extent of uncertainty over what was said to the daughter was exaggerated in your mind, because you did not read the articles with sufficient diligence. You should understand that your personal ignorance is not evidence of a general lack of knowledge.
Having been contradicted by the facts in this case, you attempted to rephrase your position, and managed to contradict yourself over whether the daughter's guessing of the facts would or would not be grounds for voiding the settlement. This is not particularly important, as it has already been established by Mr. Snay's own deposition that this is not what happened, and your arguments here are only part of a futile attempt to unsay what you had previously stated. It is, however, an indication of your predilection for invalid arguments.
That you don't understand doesn't make me wrong...
Here's another contradiction, all in one thread:
"We don't have the details about the NDA clause in the agreement'
"The NDA presumes that if news leaks, the "other party" leaked it.'
Your language here is refreshingly straightforward, so if the evident meaning is not what you meant, the problem is yours.
...It just makes you dumb.
A loser's tacit admission that he has lost.
