>You say hallucination, I say reasonable prediction based on past behavior.

You're also welcome to make a prediction, but label it as a prediction rather than a statement of fact.

Apparently you only address non-substantive points that you can nitpick. So I guess we're done, unless you'd like to go back and do your homework.

	▲	0xDEAFBEAD 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		To me, this is the substantive point. It's about intellectual honesty. That's the key thing for me. From my perspective, most of what you're saying is either (a) not substantive/outright disingenuous, or (b) I don't have much to add. If there is a particular point you really want me to respond to, you're welcome to highlight it and I will consider responding (but honestly probably not, for the reasons I gave).