3 ms·
> The thing is, did he? Really? Well, in the absence of evidence in the contrary, they probably did.
by EdwardDiego 5y ago
> The thing is, did he? Really?
Well, in the absence of evidence in the contrary, they probably did.
- zcw100 5y agoBelieving everything you read on the internet is true as long as you don't have contrary evidence isn't a good idea. I'm not saying he didn't, I'm saying you don't have any evidence, other than his own assertion, that he did. Considering the article is railing against learning "the fundamentals" his assertion is very self serving and should be taken with a bit of skepticism.