#Except for the fact that I have seen that same style of trolling comment across quite a few works

[wrightaboutthat]

Hey Narumitsu fandom? Why are some comments on AO3 like: That

#Added to the court record #narumitsu #miles edgeworth #phoenix wright #wrightworth #Like dkwndnw HELLO??? #Lovely way to be greeted into the fanfiction side of things HA #I think I would have been more pressed #Except for the fact that I have seen that same style of trolling comment across quite a few works #So like dnwndnwndn #Ship discourse? In front of MY salad??? #People really have no better way to spend their time huh #Best believe I deleted it in like two seconds ha i was like NOPE NOT TODAY #NOT ABOUT TO BE BAITED #But I will ABSOLUTELY roast you on my sideblog andnsndnsn #Like sis #These men could be canonically declared as enemies and I would still ship them to this capacity #I will BEND canon with the best of them andmwn

[thoroughlyskeptic]

So I stumbled across this post as it was so distinctly expressed by a blogger who opposes the majority of the commonly held skeptic view points.

I have a legitimate question? Why should we except what you do not? You speak about Genealogical evidence. The first bit of evidence that the skeptics presented was a copy of Burke's with a different year for Sophie's birth but clearly her. It was rejected out of hand because it didn't fit the nanny narrative. Several Geneaolgy sites either do not list them as married or do not have supporting evidence. Some of the skeptics found this because they are related to either Ben, Sophie or both. Then again about half of the US population of European descent is related to them.

Straight from the beginning, there was a rift among superfans and between those who just watched Ben in the movies.

You also claim to have seen evidence on UK centric gossip sites. Which sites would they be? The Mirror or the Mail? They don't encourage discussion. Jezebel or Gawker? Not really UK only sites. But these sites are still around and have archives. Surely, it would be easy to find the link to the people mentioning the kids, show a screenshot showing someone saying something like, "no he's straight" that predates the involvement of Sophie? (August 2014 or there abouts?)

You can't prove a negative with the absence of evidence. Particularly when that evidence does exists.

These are from Lipstick Alley 2013/2015 and none are from current skeptics. I took the names off but left the little tag on that identifies the "well-known member" of LSA. There were also comments on Datalounge as well. You would have to look at pre-2014 because after that the forums had issues with trolls that didn't like the commenting style on that particular site.

I, personally, have never believed Ben has a massive drug problem like some, but to say that he just smokes cigarettes and drinks is to deny his own words from interviews. There is also this interaction from around the taping of August:Osage County.

The only people I've seen that have mentioned talking to the third child or knowing someone who has is furriesandus,tumblr,com. Their information has always been less then consistent. In fact, they once said they were related to Sophie close enough to have access to her birth certificate, but couldn't seem do decide how she was related to her. There are records of those interactions as well.

So in the words of the nastiest guy I ever met, "put up or shut up". You complain about our lack of evidence yet say that same lack of evidence IS your evidence.