Originally Posted by Sam Flynn
You've started this thread off right from the get-go by personalising the argument. Why on earth would you think that anyone would want to engage with you on that basis? I'm certainly not going to.
"Senseless crap", indeed! Grow up.
Iīve been grown for the longest now, Gareth. This thread is not about personalizing the argument at all. It is about whether posters with suspects can be trusted or not, and whether those who choose not to trust them must base their decision on facts or if they are free to simply accuse anybody with a suspect as being less reliable than themselves on no factual grounds at all.
Much as you may think that you are the only one targetted by such a framwork, let me tell you that this is not so. It is a very important issue and one that needs looking into.
Your way of looking on things is that if you promote Karl Marx as being Grouchos brother, and if I promote Zeppo, Harpo and Chico instead, then you are more likley to be correct than I am - if I stand to strengthen my theory by being correct.
The crux of this matter is that what you point to - that whenever somebody stands to strenghten a suspect by choosing a path, then that somebody is not to be trusted - would, if we decide to use this distinction, automatically cripple anybody who suggest a suspect, since any suggestion that has something pointing to that suspect would in your world be an exponent of a bias, and not of a rationally made choice.
These are sinple enough questions to answer, and very hard questions to avoid. The reason for the latter being that you will point to a hefty bias of your own by not doing so, instead trying to suggest that the topic of the thread is not a generally interesting and useful one.
You have made an accusation. Base it on facts or admit that you were wrong. Itīs the only decent thing to do.