Daily conspiracy

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’m not sure ‘admitting’ describes it best. That word implies something along the lines of an error that one feels guilty or ashamed about. I glory in picking nits. I revel in it. My favourite time of year is the annual nit harvest - nothing stirs me live seeing the sunlit fields of nit-stalks, waving majestically in the breeze.

Do NOT compare my dealings with you with the way I interacted with 37. There is nothing similar between the two.

I can’t tell you which bits I agreed or disagreed with, because I didn’t read it. As I told you before, I’m not that interested. But, by referring to its author snidely as a ‘blog poster’, you’re re-enforcing the idea that you’re less concerned with what people say than who happens to be saying it.

Boru

So you never read Helios' blog poster link? I see. Did you even read the Intercept article? When people don't care about something, they usually don't comment on it and call out others for not reading links they haven't even read themselves, but you do you. And the nitpicking was fine and I'm glad to be corrected on my minor error, so thank you for that, as I like to have mistakes pointed out so I don't make them again, but I think multiple posts going on about that minor point was a bit much, but that's just imo.

If it was a blog poster that was making sense, then fine, but you haven't even read the link yourself, so how do you know the author/blog poster is not making as crazy of points as Alex Jones saying no children died at Sandy Hook? How can you criticize me for criticizing something you haven't even read?

My problem is not just that it's a blog poster, but that it's a blog poster who didn't do the proper research and admitted to posting misinformation multiple times in his own blog post. And the website appears to be passing itself off as some type of news website, when it seems to be a blog poster posting WWE memes who doesn't do the proper research before posting misinformation, which again, the author admits to, if you would just take a look at the article.

I’m not criticizing your position. I’m criticizing the fact that you off hand rejected a refutation of your position based on nothing more than the fact that it came from ‘a blog poster’. It doesn’t matter that I haven’t read it.

Suppose someone came up with a stunningly effective plan for the world economy. It would solve hunger, empower women, raise the global standard of living, etc. but the plan was rejected on the basis that its author was left handed. I would need to examine the plan to know that left-handedness is a stupid reason for rejecting it.

Boru