Oh, it's not deflection, it's literally the root of your argument.
You are taking the superior position, with literally no justification. To top it off, a very casual look at your comment history makes it clear that you are a propagandist. That's the only qualification I see here.
I see you're still avoiding the question. I'm not sure why I should answer any of yours if you won't answer the one I asked first.
I'll ask it again: why you think Dan Dicks is qualified to interpret that jargon-filled set of highly technical instructions, given that there's nothing about him that indicates he could understand it?
Oh, it's not deflection, it's literally the root of your argument.
You are taking the superior position, with literally no justification. To top it off, a very casual look at your comment history makes it clear that you are a propagandist. That's the only qualification I see here.
So why are you on conspiracy again?
I see you're still avoiding the question. I'm not sure why I should answer any of yours if you won't answer the one I asked first.
I'll ask it again: why you think Dan Dicks is qualified to interpret that jargon-filled set of highly technical instructions, given that there's nothing about him that indicates he could understand it?
Nope, you are avoiding my question. You didn't ask me that question, you asked the forum.
Your purpose for being here is dubious. That is certain.
You're right.
And I asked what qualification you have. Pretty simple, really.
You can't expect people to speak for another, when you obviously can't speak for yourself.
Why should we think YOU can understand it?
Can't answer that, and there's absolutely no reason to trust a single thing you say.
Which I never will, given your horrendous attitude.