Why do I bother with you? I like Third Eye Blind. This is their forum. In periods of time killing, I peruse the other topics discussed here and give my 2 cents the same as everybody else. Why am I not subject to the burden of proof? Clearly someone of your scinitilating intellect, as evidenced by your noteworthy satire in the quoted post, would have picked up the distinction I have made now at least 3 times: the burden of proof rests on the claimant. As I am not claiming any of these statements (see the defenders of the so-called WMD scare), the burden of proof rests upon them, and not my disbelief of their inadeqate evidence. Is that so difficult? Should I present a claim, the burden of proof would rest upon me to convince others, should I wish to do so.
Evidently they wish to convince me of something, and I am not convinced. In their frustration, they point the finger at me and say "he doesn't believe!" Rightly so, until sufficient evidence supporting their claims is presented. It is not for me to provide counter evidence unless I wish to convince THEM of something. My mere disbelief serves my purpose. I don't frankly care what deluded thoughts they hold, from my perspective. They are entitled to them.
Let me state this one more time, perhaps repetition will make it sink in for some: I don't have to defend my opinion because my opinion is not fact. I am not so delusional to believe that it is. If I want to convince others of my opinion, or convince them to accept certain facts, then I would be subject to the burden of proof. Mere opinion, is not.