No, you are shifting the burden of proof.
YOU can’t prove what you are asserting, while I proved my part.
unrelated.
No. Because it’s better UI design.
No, it’s EXACTLY how it is.
I could also tell you that fighters are in the category “fighter” while drone are in the category “drone” but I’m afraid your brain will explode.
I’m still seeing stations listed in the “Structure Browser”. Stay mad. ^-^
yeah you are still wrong.
I’m not expecting you to realize your own stupidity.
Awaiting your argument as to why. ^-^
already given.
Nope. ^-^
yes I did.
Please link it. ^-^
already given.
Giving it more won’t make you magically able to understand it.
Waiting. ^-^
no, you r shifting the burden of proof.
lmao I don’t think you know what that term means. ^-^
Indeed.
Concession accepted. ^-^
ty for proving you have no argument.
I made my argument: Stations are a type of structure and are as such listed in the Structure Browser. You had no refutation. Thanks for playing. ^-^
And this is stupid.
Proof : stations are not structures but are still listed in the structure browser.
So you still did not provide an argument that was correct.
You just keep repeating the same stupid thing ad nauseam.
I proved why it is wrong, and you did not prove anything.
So yes, you are wrong.
This is not an argument. ^-^
Awaiting your argument as to why they are not structures despite being listed in the structure browser. ^-^
But isn’t this the kind of thing over which you rabidly attack others?
No. His argument is just “the sun is yellow so I am right”. It’s just non logical.
It literally makes as much sense as claiming that, since a car seller can also sell eg tires or car acc essories, then a tire is a car. It’s just absurd.
He is the one making a stupid argument. He still has to prove his argument makes a logical sense. I’m sure he can’t realize why this is stupid, though.