3 ms·
Or, I read the links and thought their arguments were ridiculous. I’ll stop this conversation here: I see no point in arguing with someone who won’t offer me th
by dash2 5y ago
Or, I read the links and thought their arguments were ridiculous. I’ll stop this conversation here: I see no point in arguing with someone who won’t offer me the basic assumption of good faith.
- kragen 5y agoThat's not a valid reason for asserting that the links weren't there at all.
- native_samples 5y agoThe assumption of good faith has to be earned, it's not a right. On this site users are mostly anonymous and so there is a rule that you assume good faith by default but that is not a license to say whatever you like and then get upset when called on it. It's especially vital for upholding the default assumption of good faith that people try hard to be precise in their words. In this case you said clearly that the assertions were unsupported which doesn't mean "supported but I don't like it". You did in fact say something untrue and if that's because you use language badly, that's a problem you are creating for everyone else. So stop it - admit your claim was wrong and move on to explaining why you don't like the support used.