That's because his or her desire to be «always right» is about their own ego, not about
proving objective facts.
Not exact matches
But, no, proponents don't know enough basic physics and deny the free fall
fact, so, as I said,
objective, scientific rebuttal is impossible [and not necessary — just as it is not necessary to
prove in learned journals that the moon is not made of green cheese].
It is also possible that some of them might agree with the letter's unnamed author (s) that it's acceptable to dishonestly misrepresent the
objective facts about climate science, but until that's been
proven on an individual basis, I refuse to ascribe that level of ethical failure to anyone.
(1) the comment must be on a matter of public interest; (2) the comment must be based on
fact; (3) the comment, though it can include inferences of
fact, must be recognizable as comment; and, (4) the comment must satisfy the following
objective test: could any person honestly express that opinion on the
proved facts?
Aggravated perjury, forged letters, falsified evidence, unsupported / inconsistent / unchallenged false accusations, by the mother, CPS, et al., outweighed exhaustive undisputed
facts, certified evidence, sworn statements, &
objective / testable / verifiable documentation, disproving the accusations, &
proving neglect / abuse by the mother.