3 ms·
Yeah that's fine but just stating things like that as incontrovertible fact with absolutely no supporting evidence, none, which is what you did, isn't useful. I
by harry8 5y ago
Yeah that's fine but just stating things like that as incontrovertible fact with absolutely no supporting evidence, none, which is what you did, isn't useful. It made me pretty suspicious of an astroturf for example. 9 times in 10 it isn't that but it always looks really bad. It's also tantamount to saying "everyone here is either an idiot or acting in bad faith" and has no reason at all to believe a thing that you are now pointing is is wrong and so clearly wrong that it's the same as stating water is wet. I note now you're providing evidence you're walking it back a bit, which shows the worth of doing so.
It's very common elsewhere. Just keep repeating a thing until it is accepted but it really isn't how things are supposed to be in sensible discussion.
- gonehome 5y agoI think that's an unfair characterization. I was replying to someone who said Krebs was "exactly right" - that's what I was pushing back on. My first comment was also more nuanced. The evidence exists for those who care to look and I think what I wrote is inline with it.
- harry8 5y agoIf you'd provided any support with that statement at all, or said /why/ you believe that, it's completely fine. Doesn't even have to be correct! We all get stuff wrong. If you believe you provided the support in a different comment, cite it. "I'm right, go find the evidence if you dare doubt me." Not so useful.