I called anigbrowl "worse than a troll" in the context of the conversation, in that he was a "pedant". One (troll) is a BS accusation, the other (pedant) is something that seriously screws discussions by focusing on inconsequential details.
Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.
>Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
Excuse me, I'm the one that can't take criticism? You came with guns blazing against everyone with an opposite opinion (ignorants, etc), focusing on the technicalities but never addressing the larger picture. You even invoked reasons about why the piece should never even be posted (the news outlet violates HN quality criteria, and such), and you even wrote that I should not even be allowed to make an initial comment (in your words, a "pre-emptive rant"). Perhaps you think your criticism is the only valid one, and everything else is the ramblings of idiots.
>As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.
I never said it was "evidence". I just said it was an indication -- instead of openly mocking everyone even considering it.
How about the constraint not to put things in my mouth?
I'm also of the opinion that in real life (as opposed to government issued statements), the context, motive and feasibility (not to mention past track record), are good enough to seriously consider the possibility. People expecting "evidence" of such things are naive in the way governments work -- a study in anti-activist and anti-dissident history will give them tons of examples of shameless power abuse by such agencies, from dealing drugs to support Contras, to openly killing dissidents.
Except I don't think they're inconsequential at all, but rather key to understanding why this story is a crock. You started out in this thread with a pre-emptive finger-wagging rant; my suggestion is that you shouldn't dish out criticism if you can't take it.
As for your example of Hastings, the possibility of a conspiracy isn't evidence of a conspiracy. You don't appear to understand the difference.