I don't know who gets a harder time in here, Barlow or Snowflake.
You mean when a thing is true, there is no need to use any arguments to substantiate it, when it's not Snowflake will take it and write a 2 page diatribe of crap about it?
When a thing is true, there is no need to use any arguments to substantiate it. But Snowflake will write a 2 page diatribe railing against it regardless of its or his veracity.