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.
He was found liable lolol.
What are you talking about? you used AI first and I used it after to show you how silly it was to do so. Your prompt got you the information you wanted.
It's like living in a bizzaro world- guys is found liable, then liable for defamation, his appeal rejected and you are saying its all bullshit on the grounds of some weak circumstantial evidence like you tried the case or something. You then lock on to something I said which is completely reasonable, aka you didn't try the case and clearly the jury and judge heard way more evidenced and arguments than you.
You clearly took the L. You are arguing for things that never happened in clear contradistinction to reality.
You seem to be having trouble deciphering the multiple arguments I made and are lumping them all into one run on topic.
I am not even sure what we are arguing? he was found liable by the jury and the judge.
