Sure thing, buddy. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

...since you're insistently lying (yes) about what I need: I don't "need" him to be innocent, and I don't "need" him to be guilty. From my PoV he's simply some old guy, with a bunch of hypotheses that range from "this is interesting" to "nah, bollocks", always backpedalling when proved wrong. That's it.

Is this clear?

(Also take a clue from the fact I was the one bringing him up, even if the thread is about the DinoCon.)

We all knew who Epstein was by that point. He should know better.

Yes, and? Myself said so in another comment dammit. The question here is how much he should be blamed. Should we blame him for:

1. Abusing some children himself?
2. Not abusing them, but actively helping Epstein to do so, in matters directly related to the abuse?
3. Not directly helping Epstein with the abuse, but knowing to be associated with a paedophile, and not giving a fuck about it?
4. Not knowing he was associated with a paedophile, but being in a position he should have done so?
5. Nothing?

Are you getting the picture? It's a fucking gradient of shit. Both #1 and #5 are likely bollocks; but from #2 to #4 it's all "maybe". We don't know what he did, and we don't know what he knows.

And before some muppet says "but you said «I guess he’s still in the “when in doubt, treat them as innocent” category for me.»!!!": I was clearly talking about what I formalised as #3. This is bloody obvious by context dammit, check the comment I was answering to!

How self deluded do you need to be in order to convince yourself that Chomsky reached out to the most notorious convicted pedophile in American history for some help with his taxes?

That is not even remotely close to what I said.

You don't even know what you're screeching at.

At this rate it's safe to ignore you as dead weight and a noise. Feel free to keep screeching at your own assumptions, as if you were screeching at what I said, but don't expect me to read it.