I don’t personally know any of them. But does that matter? I’m not claiming to be >95% sure or anything like that, and so I don’t see why I’d need such strong evidence as personally knowing “these people”.
I’m not claiming to be >95% sure or anything like that, and so I don’t see why I’d need such strong evidence as personally knowing “these people”.
Do you have any evidence at all for your psychologising?
Doing some fnord-extraction on the OP:
″… fantastic post … these moneybag guys .. here’s how I see … probably makes my opinions pretty clear … I doubt that … I’m sure … It could be the case that … but I doubt it … the most important things … There seems to be … I’m sure they feel … Or maybe not … But if … I understand that there’s probably … I’m sure that … I’m sure that … I’m sure that … might be … don’t seem to be … A big reason … this impression … seems to apply … get the impression …”
This sort of writing, wherever I see it, gives me “the impression” that the writer is putting in the dubifiers to excuse themselves from presenting any evidence.
I don’t personally know any of them. But does that matter? I’m not claiming to be >95% sure or anything like that, and so I don’t see why I’d need such strong evidence as personally knowing “these people”.
Do you have any evidence at all for your psychologising?
Doing some fnord-extraction on the OP:
″… fantastic post … these moneybag guys .. here’s how I see … probably makes my opinions pretty clear … I doubt that … I’m sure … It could be the case that … but I doubt it … the most important things … There seems to be … I’m sure they feel … Or maybe not … But if … I understand that there’s probably … I’m sure that … I’m sure that … I’m sure that … might be … don’t seem to be … A big reason … this impression … seems to apply … get the impression …”
This sort of writing, wherever I see it, gives me “the impression” that the writer is putting in the dubifiers to excuse themselves from presenting any evidence.