Nonetheless:

If someone were to kill...let's say, a friend of yours (assuming any such person could exist), would you then argue that your friend wasn't dead if it could not be proven in a court of law that the defendant had done the deed? Let us further imagine that you witnessed the act being committed, from such a close distance and such a fortuitous angle that you were 100% positive about who it was that had committed the crime. Would that affect the outcome? Is it somehow not true that when a crime has been committed, a crime has, in fact, been committed? If the police (or anyone else) see a person commit a violation of law with their own eyes, and do nothing about it, is that not the very definition of "tolerance of lawbreaking?"

But then, I already know you agree. You know all of this to be true. My posts (and certainly yours, and this entire thread) have already watered down the point of Mr. Wu's article beyond all recognition.

So go ahead. Do your worst. Find some barely comprehensible fault with some false reading of what I've said, and then give me some terse bit of baloney that has nothing to do with anything.

<soul-crushing wave of self-loathing overcomes this poster>

Why do I bother? "Why" indeed.

<slits wrists>

<chokes to death on the irony of it all>