> I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. ... If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way ... Nobody has to

> I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. ... If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way ... Nobody has to prove things that should be the default assumption. You should assume that when someone has been extensively investigated by a law office, that office understands at least the most superficial, obvious facts of the case. Likewise, it is the default stance that a person at a high station in a technical field isn't an idiot. I don't have to prove it. There has to be evidence to contradict it before the accusation ought to be thrown about. > Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this. I honestly can't recall an occasion where I have accused someone of being stupid for disagreeing with my political stance on this site or in any other forum where you'd have cause to call me out on it. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that some time in the past two and a half years I've made that mistake. The hypocrisy accusation bears no weight when the accused is not currently endorsing a stance that runs contrary to their action. It is wholly irrelevant that at some point in time I have violated some part of my own moral code. > Let's keep the meta discussion out of it. I think the meta-discussion becomes appropriate when baseless accusations start being accepted without evidence simply because of the political stance of the majority of the site participants. It seems to me that HN is uniquely unsuited to approach this particular issue rationally, and I have provided evidence to that end. I will not keep the meta-discussion out of it.