You seem to be suffering from the 'fallacy' of disagreeing with me (and other posters) only then to restate what we have said, but using different vocabulary.
I have no idea what the scare quotes are for - a recognition on your part that you're using the word illegitimately, perhaps. It's not a fallacy to point out that somebody is employing a fallacy
when they are actually doing so. Restatement comes when somebody is either unwilling or simply unable to grasp something the first time round - like you with fallacious reasoning. If you can't, or won't, grasp something once, whatever the reason for that may be, it's worth the effort of saying precisely the same thing albeit in different terms in case that catches hold where the first explication didn't.
Alas, past that point there seems little point in continuing.
The problem, as I've pointed out to SKoS, is that you and others seem very keen to limit the scope of logic to what you feel comfortable with.
No, it has zero to do with comfort. The real problem is that you are either too blinkered/arrogant to recognise that there are certain rules of logic that you routinely flout because the pointing out of these rules demonstrates that you are in the wrong, or just plain old too stupid to grasp said rules when they are brought to your attention. It's either arrogant, pompous I'm-right-and-the-rules-of-logic-are-wrong-ery, or it's simple stupidity. If there is another option or there are other options, I'm yet to see it or them. Every time you wheel out the "There is no evidence that there isn't ... " or "Where is your evidence that it didn't ..." or something similarly worded - that's the most common logical fallacy that you habitually employ, of course, though not the only one - you demonstrate an elementary failure of logic. Many different posters here have pointed this out to you many, many different times over an extended period of time; this makes absolutely no difference to you whatever, and you continue to make the same basic errors in reasoning. I can't currently call to mind the exact word-for-word quote but Churchill supposedly once said that men occasionally stumble across the truth, but most pick themselves up and carry on as though nothing had happened. That's a perfect capsule summary of your approach to correction from people who understand logic; it never happened - blunder on regardless.
As far as I can see, there are only two reasons for that state of affairs. There's the disagreeable mix of arrogance and wounded pride - nobody particularly likes being told: "Actually you're wrong, and this is the reason/here are the reasons why you're wrong ..." - or dumb incomprehension.
