DPD Tapes and a 6 Minute Discrepancy

[Mitch Todd]

I didn't take "offence", I simply corrected your mistake.

I the given context, which is a possible timeline discrepancy (as per thread title), the "any" introduced by you solely to win an argument makes no sense.

But why don't you explain why the Nash couple showed any interest in the funeral home in the first place?

I made no mistake here.

Let's go back to what you wrote: "There's no way the FBI could have known in advance that the time card would not influence or even crack the case; that's why evidence is collected even if it may initially seem insignificant and they evidently had every opportunity to secure this piece of evidence, yet failed to do so."
The clause in italics universalizes your assertion. Again, even if you didn't use the word "any," it's clearly implied in that clause. Any appeal to context on your part is nothing more than silly dodge. You've wasted enough of our time, so no more.

[John Iacoletti]

The "so, what" was covered by what I wrote that you didn't quote in your reply:

"And we should not believe the Nashes, then we should not believe Bowley, Davenport, Markham, or your mom. My problem is, you apply this in one direction only, against the Nash article. Had you really believed in the position you now maintain, you wouldn't apply it so one-sidedly."

I don't know what you're talking about.  When did I say that I apply a different standard to anybody else?

[John Iacoletti]

Not that would ever satisfy you. But then again, you don't want to be satisfied an any way or to any extent.

The problem is that it doesn't take a whole lot to satisfy you when it comes to accepting the narrative.

[Mitch Todd]

I don't know what you're talking about.  When did I say that I apply a different standard to anybody else?

Where did I say that you said that you apply a different standard to anybody else? I said that you applied one standard to the Nash article, but don't extend the the same skepticism to, say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport. You've been doing it, whether or not you've admitted it.

At least you're right about one thing: you have no idea what I'm talking about. 

[John Iacoletti]

Where did I say that you said that you apply a different standard to anybody else? I said that you applied one standard to the Nash article, but don't extend the the same skepticism to, say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport. You've been doing it, whether or not you've admitted it.

BS. I’ve never applied a different standard of skepticism to “say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport.”

You just completely made that up.

[Mitch Todd]

BS. I’ve never applied a different standard of skepticism to “say, Markham, Bowley, Davenport.”

You just completely made that up.

I've made nothing up. We see what you object to, and what you refrain from objecting to. Your double standard shines brightly through the crack between that Scylla and Charybdis.

[Bill Chapman]

I've made nothing up. We see what you object to, and what you refrain from objecting to. Your double standard shines brightly through the crack between that Scylla and Charybdis.

More like a light bulb that constantly flickers on-and-off due to not being tightly screwed in.