Suspecting someone is a fraud is one thing. Implying someone is a fraud in print without clear evidence is another, and it is typically followed up on with at l

Suspecting someone is a fraud is one thing. Implying someone is a fraud in print without clear evidence is another, and it is typically followed up on with at least a threatening letter on corporate lawyer letterhead. Maybe they could've written another piece. I'm sure they invested a fair bit of time into learning what they did to write the piece they had. At any rate, none of that matters. The ancestor post that matters was: > "First ethical rule: If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud." I disagree with that statement for all of the reasons I have mentioned. In fact, all I did was point out that you were being obtuse, either intentionally or otherwise, because you couldn't make the analogy-leap from "death by trolley" to "your life is now only about this lawsuit and all of your other interests must be ignored for 6-14 months". > So, just so I get this right: you and MichaelCollins are of the view that anyone who criticizes a corporation is a member of a "death cult"? No. Those are the words of another commenter. My thinking that it's laughable that people pretend they don't know how analogies work does not logically imply that I share the views of the person that happened to encourage you to demonstrate it. Anyway, I think he's conceptually right. I wouldn't use the phrase "death cult." Not because there's anything wrong with it - it's just not in my regular vernacular.