Cherry picking is a fallacy which involves ignoring evidence. We had no evidence that he cannot rig an animate, only evidence that he can animate.

As I've said before this is irrelevant unless he advertised himself as someone who'd be willing to also rig and animate the models he created.

It doesn't mean anything at all about what they will or will not do. It only means that they likely can do it again.

Exactly.

It's true that he did not advertise his entire skill set. So what?

So what? That means he doesn't do rigging and even if he does, he is not looking to rig models he creates currently. Pretty obvious stuff here, Sherlock.

Irrelevant to what? The work that he offered to do? So what? He had to read a short post that asked about skill sets that he didn't offer, but are very closely related to the service that he offered. He'll live.

What's your point here and how does it relate to my 'He does not rig/animate' comment? Let's not change subjects here bud. What you are talking about now is irrelevant because you are trying to shift the issue to OP's side, as if it is somehow his fault you are incapable of reading a few lines of text.

After you ripped a guy a new one for asking a simple question.

My replies were hardly 'ripping a guy a new one'. It went as far as it did for the same reason this one did - you ignore OP's post, make wild assumptions, get corrected, and then dig your hole deeper because you can't accept that you were wrong. Pitiful

And also people who are unfortunate enough to be forced to abide by the laws of spacetime.

I'd use wit to if the essence of my argument pretty much came down to 'water is not wet' .