I see you've updated your comment! re: [4] 1) I'm glad you've had personal experience with this! Cool! 2) Having a name for a phenomena does not mean that t

I see you've updated your comment! re: [4] 1) I'm glad you've had personal experience with this! Cool! 2) Having a name for a phenomena does not mean that the phenomena actually exists. and 3) It's hard to see that this is "more rigorous". I was trying to point out that your (highly upvoted) comment didn't actually include any references, citations, or facts, although it appeared to. It also seemed to be a (very well written) variation on the "some people say..." mode of rhetoric, which was further enhanced with a very authoritative tone. I don't think it becomes an ontological or epistemological discussion to query for additional sources/evidence/data. I was trying to courteously say "hey, that statement had no sources", especially because i don't believe that this is a very common phenomenon. I will do so more bluntly next time. That said, your state legislators are some of the lowest paid public servants there are (http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislative_salaries.cfm http://www.empirecenter.org/html/legislative_salaries.cfm). Unglamorous, unappreciated, and generally unknown to all but the most attentive citizens, it really pains me to hear some really smart people assume the worst of them.