Given that I am in possession of contrary information, I would have to say that "what has been established to you", was only in part. So, if you choose to claim it as fact without having all the information, it is simply an unverified claim.
Ok... now that's definitly it.
There is no one who could say I haven't been patient, that I haven't given you the benefit of the doubt, that I haven't tried my best.
Let's go back a little bit, shall we?
You cannot say that an unestablished fact is only a claim, and have that fact be any less of a fact. You cannot.
So I presented a fact, that I have repeatedly made clear is established to me, but may not have been established to you.
And instead of adhering to your own rule, accepting that and chosing to now call it "fact"... you try to find excuses why you need not do that.
Your behaviour here makes absolutely clear that you cannot abide by even your own rules, that your only position, even if it contradicts your own rules, is "I am right... you are not."
Which, if you will be honest leaves you to admit that "you" simply do not know it to be true. Then, and only then can we get to the crux of the problem. That is the only path that will allow us to proceed.
Because
your "knowledge" is beyond reproach and mustn't be questioned, while
my knowlegde must be false (or "only in part") by default. It is simply not possible for you to be honest and admit that "you" simply do not know it to be true.
If we are to continue - that is a rule you will have to abide by. I insist.
Yes, you made that absolutely clear, without a doubt: you insist of being accepted as correct.
There is no way to continue a conversation who "insists" on rules for a conversation and cannot keep them himself.
I tried. I won't try anymore. Welcome to my ignore list.