First, your general assessment is wrong. The news was already reporting about US intelligence knowing about this in autumn of 2019, as well as China knowing about it [1]. So I doubt a few weeks ago people were saying "no evidence" to the suggestion that China knew about this in autumn.
That being said, what exactly is "this kind of speculation?" This article isn't "speculation." It's far more than that. So what do you mean "this kind of speculation?" What articles like "this" were posted a few weeks ago that were met with responses like the ones indicated?
> until suddenly there is evidence.
That's the difference between speculation and what "this" is. This has evidence.
> ...what is the accepted way to talk ... which doesn't illicit those dismissive and heavy handed responses?
I don't know what you are referencing a few weeks ago to offer up any specific suggestions. What I can say is that your comment hints on specific things, so I offer suggestions based purely on my assumptions.
1. Stop with the hyperbole. Be precise in what you are saying. Your comment here doesn't do that in the slightest.
2. Be humble. An active imagination is being equated to a researched article with sources.
3. Don't have an agenda. Your agenda here is questionable at best, and it's easy to see with the choice of words.
If you are serious about having these conversations, the best approach is start to prove the opposing side first. Look to validate the opposing view from your speculation and approach it that way. If your speculation is correct, it will come out.
If you look at the actual source for that link you'll see the following statement from the Pentagon[0]:
> "As a matter of practice the National Center for Medical Intelligence does not comment publicly on specific intelligence matters. However, in the interest of transparency during this current public health crisis, we can confirm that media reporting about the existence/release of a National Center for Medical Intelligence Coronavirus-related product/assessment in November of 2019 is not correct. No such NCMI product exists," the statement said.
I would be one of the people making the observations that the virus may have been around longer than the currently official records, which would be met with vitriol
I didn't make that clear because why do you think I have to do that?
First, your general assessment is wrong. The news was already reporting about US intelligence knowing about this in autumn of 2019, as well as China knowing about it [1]. So I doubt a few weeks ago people were saying "no evidence" to the suggestion that China knew about this in autumn.
That being said, what exactly is "this kind of speculation?" This article isn't "speculation." It's far more than that. So what do you mean "this kind of speculation?" What articles like "this" were posted a few weeks ago that were met with responses like the ones indicated?
> until suddenly there is evidence.
That's the difference between speculation and what "this" is. This has evidence.
> ...what is the accepted way to talk ... which doesn't illicit those dismissive and heavy handed responses?
I don't know what you are referencing a few weeks ago to offer up any specific suggestions. What I can say is that your comment hints on specific things, so I offer suggestions based purely on my assumptions.
1. Stop with the hyperbole. Be precise in what you are saying. Your comment here doesn't do that in the slightest.
2. Be humble. An active imagination is being equated to a researched article with sources.
3. Don't have an agenda. Your agenda here is questionable at best, and it's easy to see with the choice of words.
If you are serious about having these conversations, the best approach is start to prove the opposing side first. Look to validate the opposing view from your speculation and approach it that way. If your speculation is correct, it will come out.
[1] https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/intelligence/49...