This is all incorrect, and rather wildly so in fact. I just pointed out a specific post, allow me to quote it verbatim:
his *very clearly* indicates that he has something *to bring* but will not do so because he thinks I won't accept it. For this to be true, he must have read some parts of it. This is further evidenced from his post where he says he twn reads Ekko, where he quotes a very specific portion of our discussion that, if he had not been reading, he simply could not have made:
Emphasis mine.
Which in turn brings me to you. Frankly, I don't think your opinion on this is at all erudite, but yet you've clearly read the thread, so I don't see any reason to view it charitably. See, I can reconcile Pero as simply being stubborn and wanting to say *something* even if that something isn't very good, and instead of conceding it, arguing himself into a hole. He does that quite a lot. That's more of a personality trait, and thus is good enough for me to give some benefit of the doubt (though not entirely, hence my vote, and my questioning him in the first place).
I don't think you could be more insincere here if you tried. Why does it come across as a "gotcha" when the evidence speaks for itself?