You see, this is exactly what I was talking about.
In our earlier discussion, Washburne’s claims were dissected and refuted, one by one and in painstaking detail. At the conclusion of this, you wrote:
However, I was skeptical regarding your response and highly suspected that, regardless of whether Washburne actually provided subtantive rebuttals to the objections that had been raised, in short order you would be back here bleating out the same talking points as if that entire discussion had never taken place.
And here we are.
Correct. Thanks for that very important clarification.