That’s not the “gotcha” you think it is, mhaze.

//“You didn’t use those exact phrases, true…”//

Yes, and I immediately explained that your own wording (“materially better deal… anti-Brexiteers towing the line”) still implied far more than just a 10% tariff difference. That wasn’t me admitting you were right; it was me showing why your claim was broader than you now pretend.

You’ve rebranded my clarification as a confession. That’s not proof, it’s spin.

If you actually had a quote where I said you were right on Brexit, you’d post it. Instead, we’re still stuck on vibes.

Try again...

"we’re still stuck on vibes."

I'm just giving you an education how relying on the vibes/implied card is a two way street. As well as having a deal of fun.

So, no quote then, mhaze.

//Giving you an education… relying on vibes… fun…//

Exactly my point: you can’t show where I admitted you were right, so now it’s “just vibes” and “just for fun.”

That’s not education, it’s evasion.

Well maybe it just goes over your head. What I'm showing is that when you used the 'implications' assertion to make claims about Brexit in regards to the US/UK to say I'd said things that I hadn't said, the I could use the same process to expand on the 'implications' of what you'd said.

Too subtle for you?

Yes, I knew you were heading there, mhaze.

But getting you to spell it out smugly makes correcting you so much more satisfying.

See, when I draw an implication, I show how it logically follows from your own words - like when you said “materially better trade deal… even anti-Brexiteers towing the line.” That clearly implied more than just a tariff carve-out. I didn’t invent that - I quoted your framing and explained the inference step-by-step.

You, on the other hand, tried to pin an entirely unrelated Brexit admission on me based on a comment I made about CO2 - and when asked to quote where this supposed “implication” occurred, you couldn’t. You still can’t. Because it wasn’t there.

There’s a difference between inventing a random meaning that bears no resemblance to what was said, and drawing a clear implication based on wording, context, topic, and prior behaviour.

Too subtle for you?