Right, as my original point said, which you conveniently forget, was that your original criteria was flawed and incomplete. If it was actually correct and comprehensive you wouldn't need to bring additional points in, it would stand on its own. It didn't, hence my original contention of a flawed argument holds.
You're the only stressing, I'm giggling at how spun up you are. Idc one way or the other, you just get like this whenever it's pointed out your supposed rock solid argument isn't as sturdy as you think it is. If it was, you wouldn't need more than your original criteria to prove your claim.
Heres another demonstrative example since I'm having fun: if you were to say 'Jordan is the GOAT and here's why' and list his accolades, that's one thing. But, if you say 'GOAT status is determined by accolades and...blah blah blah' but leave off several of the evaluative criteria you're using to determine it, that is flawed premise. You did the latter, hence, flawed premise.
Well, then you're dealing with yet another flawed premise. Because it's not GOTE (greatest of their era) it's GOAT (greatest of ALL TIME), no? I mean, that's what YOU constantly say. Are there different definitions of "all time" im not aware of? Because I believe in the com.on vernacular it means... "all time" not "their era."
Well if you give a list of GOAT criteria, and then don't follow it and then choose to use other criteria not named, yeah, I'll mention it as yet another flawed argument. You made a contention, it was shown to be incorrect, so you then introduce additional criteria not originally present to justify.
Which y'all you talking about again? Go find anywhere I even mentioned Jones in anything or disputed his GOAT status. Anywhere. Here or mania. I'll wait, balls in your court. Go prove that claim. Don't be putting words in my mouth again cuz your got your panties bunched.