One major problem in presenting a probability assessement is that the links presented in the post offer pratically no facts about the case. They are about a Washington Senator’s reaction, instead. It would be ludicrous to answer the questions asked given only this information.
You must have only looked at the front pages of the two sites. You have to browse around somewhat to find the information.
I suggest starting here on Friends of Amanda, and here on True Justice.
You should have sent the readers directly to that information, then. LW has thousands of readers, so putting in 10X work yourself to save thousands of readers X time is generally a good idea.
Well, as I said, the information is not all in one place (particularly on TJ; FoA is better organized), and I was worried about biasing readers via my selection of the first page to read. (In fact, as I indicated in the post, I was even somewhat worried about biasing readers via my selection of the sites themselves.)
Most of the commenters seem not to have had problems. For the few that did, I don’t mind giving a little more direction to them individually.
You must have only looked at the front pages of the two sites. You have to browse around somewhat to find the information.
I suggest starting here on Friends of Amanda, and here on True Justice.
You should have sent the readers directly to that information, then. LW has thousands of readers, so putting in 10X work yourself to save thousands of readers X time is generally a good idea.
Well, as I said, the information is not all in one place (particularly on TJ; FoA is better organized), and I was worried about biasing readers via my selection of the first page to read. (In fact, as I indicated in the post, I was even somewhat worried about biasing readers via my selection of the sites themselves.)
Most of the commenters seem not to have had problems. For the few that did, I don’t mind giving a little more direction to them individually.