In a certain online forum, I was once taken to task for saying "I assert". People criticized it because it was "just" an assertion, not backed up with facts.

In a certain online forum, I was once taken to task for saying "I assert". People criticized it because it was "just" an assertion, not backed up with facts. The thing is, I am punctilious about labeling the various parts of my arguments: this is an incontrovertible fact, this is strongly supported by evidence, this is an assertion, and that is a wild-assed guess. A certain kind of engineering-oriented mind (a) wants to be fair in not claiming too much; (b) wants to have a productive debate that can actually move forward. The ironic thing about me being taken to task is that I provided far more evidence in my posts than most people in that forum (a town social / political email list), but because most participants conflated their assertions with their defensible fact-based points, they were never called on it, but because I was more intellectually honest, I was perceived as asserting facts more often, even though I did it less. So, my point is this: I applaud JWZ for labeling his assertions as such; agree with him or disagree with him, at least he's playing the intellectual game of debate on a fair and level playing field, and even helpfully labelled the stronger and weaker points of his argument. Win or lose, it's a lot more possible to have a constructive conversation.