How would posting a blurred photo (which could be of anyone) prove anything to you?
I meant a photo with a blurred face, but with a written message to identify you.
This should be easy, safe for you to produce, and would conclude this whole thing. I don't see why you don't want to do it.
How would posting a blurred photo (which could be of anyone) prove anything to you?
I meant a photo with a blurred face, but with a written message to identify you.
And how would any of that identify me?
He's like a black hole.
I think we all agree that Inquirer's rather secretive.
Seconded.
And how would any of that identify me?
If you want to, you can also get the daily Swedish newspaper on that photo.
Lol. Stop being evasive.
You argued having me and Sensy in a call at the same time wasn't proof enough because for all you knew I could've just got a friend to do the call with me. A photo with a newspaper would be the same thing.
I don't remember saying that.
Look, it's not that difficult to produce a photo. It's you who's evasive. I've already said that I will be convinced by the photo.
So why wasn't the call good enough evidence then?
A photo is easy enough. I don't have a newspaper lying around though.
Look, it's not that difficult to produce a photo.
It's really not. The only thing stopping me from doing this is lacking today's newspaper.
So why wasn't the call good enough evidence then?
A photo is easy enough. I don't have a newspaper lying around though.
I think it's alright without the newspaper.
The call was fairly good evidence. However, the issue was that, after consideration, there was too much a priori evidence and many alternative hypotheses stacked up against the evidence.
However, as I said, I'm now promising that this is all that I'll ask to tip the evidence in favor of you two being different people now and in the future. So until the photo's here then.
