Oh how sweet. You're still around. And you're still trying to peddle that evidence argument.
The point is your "definition" of evidence is base completely in emotion.
Really? Perhaps you can provide some non-emotional evidence for that assertion. You see, I have quoted you before. I have quoted the articles that we are (supposed to be) discussing. I have also linked to other sources to back up my claims.
You have done none of this. You don't quote anything. you don't cite anything. You make off-topic claims that get more fanciful all the time. My "emotional" evidence for my claim is this entirely unrelated tangent you are going on now about the definition of a word. You just keep changing the subject all the time because you can't actually back up your original rant and are desperate to move the topic elsewhere.
You are obviously and seriously mentally ill and probably illiterate.
That's funny, especially the part about me being illiterate. Remind me again which of us was able to actually read the article? Which of us refused to read what the other posted because it was a "wall of text"?
I addressed and refuted every point you tried to make.
That is obviously not true if you admit that you haven't even read some of what I have written. But even then, your so-called refutations tend to be just generalisations. I have quoted the article to you where they explain their reasons, cited an OECD report and U.S. Bureau of Labor statistics demonstrating the need to tackle the issue of female representation in computer science education, and given my cynical analysis of Microsoft's motives based on their self-interest (none of which had anything to do with affirmative action), and this was your refutation of all that:
The fact that you are making such an effort to deny it and ignore my criticism of your argument could be taken as proof that I am correct on all counts.
You are totally ignoring that affirmative action exists everywhere and is totally unjustifiable.
Wow! That is your idea of you refuting my every point? Colour me unimpressed.
For anything I say against you, you then get the idea to say the exact same against me.
Yes, of course I do. That is because you keep saying stupid things that really apply to you. For example:
You are obsessed with quibbling over this specific article when its only significance is in a bigger picture. And you have absolutely NO POINT about the article itself. When your points are refuted you turn to taking things out of context and twisting meanings to fit your point of view, and above all cherry-picking an appropriate scope of things to fit your point of view regardless of any rationale.
So in one paragraph you say that I spend too much time talking about the article and yet I don't talk about the article. Also, you say I should look at the bigger picture instead and then claim that I am the one who wants to change the scope of things to fit my point of view! But ignoring your logical incongruities, naturally I have to reflect what you said back at you.
Because it is you, and not me, who has absolutely no point about the article.
Because it is you, and not me, who wants to change the scope from the article to "the big picture".
Because it is you, and not me, who uses emotion rather than logic and evidence.
Because it is you, and not me, who doesn't read things and then claims that the other person is illiterate.
Because it is you, and not me, who gives the lesson "when you become this obsessed over a simple thing, you are wrong and you know it. Learn how to lose, learn how to change your mind" but then sticks dogmatically to the concept of the big picture to even consider that this is not an example of affirmative action.
But that's OK. I'm patient, and I'm here to help.