It would be much easier if you would just admit you didn't know what "preponderance of evidence" meant and move on. It's ok to admit mistakes.
But for anyone who wants cliff's notes, here a summary:
GA: Trial was bullshit, no evidence
Nec: The Judge had access to more evidence than we did, look at this link in paragraph three, it says it right there.
GA: I read you link, didn't see it, asked AI to confirm and it didn't either
Nec: I don't use AI
GA: Ok, where does it say it
Nec: Here, let me use AI, but never show you where it was said in my link
Take the L. Move on.
I am predicting Necrosis' response will look something like this:
While I remain cognizant of the epistemological limitations inherent to any self-assessment of intellectual hierarchy, the asymmetry in our respective capacities for abstraction, synthesis, and metacognitive inference appears sufficiently nontrivial that continued attempts at parity-based discourse may constitute an inefficient allocation of cognitive resources.
