> We have 20 years of reporting about the mischief of Microsoft. What more do you need? Reporting from where, precisely? And how does it negate Gates’ philanth

> We have 20 years of reporting about the mischief of Microsoft. What more do you need? Reporting from where, precisely? And how does it negate Gates’ philanthropy? We need to see details. What may be obvious to you is entirely unobvious to us. > Why do we even have to, yet again, bring the burden of the proof to fight a PR orchestrated with millions of dollar? Because claims require the burden of proof in general, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What is your claim exactly? That the Gates Foundation has not, for example, nearly eradicated polio? That they weren’t even involved in the 99% reduction of its incidence? We’re debating with you in good faith by explaining what we see, it would be nice if you acknowledged us as intellectual peers and bothered to humor us with some evidence. You’re refuting our evidence with...nothing, and you haven’t given us evidence to refute. What are we supposed to do, just believe you? > It's an impossible to win fight to tell the sky is blue to people if the minute they don't look at it anymore, they doubt it and ask for proof. Look, if you want to rant into a void, continue carrying on like this. If you want to seriously convince people, you need to make an effort with falsifiable claims and some evidence instead of going on about a grand conspiracy to make Bill Gates look good. What an incredibly effective conspiracy, to spend billions of dollars helping people. How nefarious of them, who would have thought of that!