Originally posted by @lemon-lime
I'm willing to read a link or two from anyone who has the capacity to understand what I'm saying, as well as having the good sense to avoid coming across like an oxymoronic bombastic name calling hair-trigger reactionary booger eating... booger eater.
========================================================================
Starting from the premise ...[text shortened]... to actually work, the premise must also serve as both the conclusion and as evidence of itself.
If you had a hard time following all that, no sweat. Here's a simpler example:
Mr A wakes up in the morning and discovers 7 holes in his backyard, evenly spaced apart and roughly the same width and depth. So he calls his next door neighbor (B) over and accuses him of digging the holes. B challenges A's theory and demands to know what evidence he has to support the charge.
1st piece of evdence: B points to the holes, and proclaims this is indisputable (direct) evidence of there being holes in his backyard.
2nd piece of evidence: B is his next door neighbor. This is circumstantial evidence supported by the 1st piece of indisputable evidence.
3rd piece of evidence: A knows that B owns a shovel, so A demands to examine B's shovel to see if there is any evidence of fresh dirt on the blade.
Perry Mason shows up out of nowhere, and reminds A that A had borrowed B's shovel a few years ago and never returned it. The three walk over to A's toolhouse and find the shovel with fresh dirt on the blade.
Case closed.
Della and Paul join Perry later on that same day, and discuss the case over porterhouse steaks and drinks.