In case it wasn’t obvious (it probably was, in which case I apologize for insulting your intelligence, or more precisely I apologize so as not to insult your intelligence), TheAncientGeek was not in fact making a claim about you or your relationship with deep-pocketed malefactors but just completing the traditional “irregular verb” template.
I think you must somehow have read what I wrote as the exact reverse of what I intended. (Unless you are calling yourself a conspiracist.) TAG is not assuming that anything must be culpable malice, he is just finishing off a joke left 2⁄3 done.
Perhaps I am just being particularly dim at the moment. Perhaps you’re being particularly obtuse for some reason. Either way, probably best if I drop this now.
He is a paid shill
despite hearing that one a lot at Rationalwiki, it turns out the big Soros bucks are thinner on the ground than many a valiant truthseeker thinks
In case it wasn’t obvious (it probably was, in which case I apologize for insulting your intelligence, or more precisely I apologize so as not to insult your intelligence), TheAncientGeek was not in fact making a claim about you or your relationship with deep-pocketed malefactors but just completing the traditional “irregular verb” template.
That’s fine :-) It ties in with what I commented above, i.e. conspiracists first assuming that disagreement must be culpable malice.
I think you must somehow have read what I wrote as the exact reverse of what I intended. (Unless you are calling yourself a conspiracist.) TAG is not assuming that anything must be culpable malice, he is just finishing off a joke left 2⁄3 done.
That’s the joke, when a conspiracist calls one a “paid shill”.
No one called anyone a paid shill.
Perhaps I am just being particularly dim at the moment. Perhaps you’re being particularly obtuse for some reason. Either way, probably best if I drop this now.