I didn't demand proof. I said "coincidence is not proof". You 'extrapolated' (using your words here) that simple statement into me demanding proof. You could have handled this way better than you did, but you chose to be a dumb ass dipshit about it. Now you're just making yourself look increasingly moronic by the second by suggesting there is no such thing as proof of anything online. If there's not proof of anything outside of a courtroom, then your original assertion is nothing more than hearsay and conjecture. You have now died on the hill that was nothing at all. Good work, genius. Funny how you said "and you need a judge to accept it as fact" in your argument here. You really didn't think that statement through because liberal judges accept all kinds of things as fact even when they are not true. Liberal judges have accepted as fact that the 2020 election was fair and not stolen. You don't believe that though. See how that works? Are you done proving your ignorance yet or will you double down once again on being retarded?