Inarguably. pt.2

You can always remark
unremarkably, to disprove a point
that remains unphased; you can always
ask questions

that any can see
have been answered before you asked,
or maybe you raise a concern
that isn't one. It isn't a question,
just 'cause you pose. If nothing
is there to be asked, but you ask
something anyway, that just shows
what you know.

It helps if you know
what your basis is, and whether
there is any basis in it. And how
to proceed with grounded steps,
from one to the next without a skip
or a leap to avoid the gaping
crack that you probably know
is there, but hope to obscure
by your choice of facts. It's
interesting that (and why) you care.

Some people like to argue to win, not
to come away with the strongest case
even if it's no longer the one they
brought in. Some people argue to keep
or save face, in disregard of what lies
behind: their brains, just not a priority.

These people can question, unquestionably.
But often enough, the unquestionable
remains, inarguably - though they will:
they argue with it in so many ways,
and with questions they raise
that are no more than pose,
without substance or basis, overt
or inferred. There are no stupid
questions, they say it's true. But truly,
there are stupid questioners.