I am constantly amazed by the collective denial and short term memory loss among some of my critics. One only need to go back to the bottom of page 12 to see that "egg on the face" resurrected an opinion I expressed in April (8 months ago back on page 7), which was neutrally conditioned on a future outcome, going well out of his way in order to make a personal attack against me, simply for intellectually honestly recognizing the ambiguity that existed among all the evidence that was available at that time. Furthermore, to add insult to injury, he accused me of not accepting evidence, ample evidence, strong evidence, backed up by news reports. It turns out, as everyone can see for themselves in the original post on page 1, that this strong ample evidence came, not from news reports, but from an "LRC note", and even LRC described it as "allegedly refused". This strong ample evidence was neither strong, nor ample, nor evidence. As everyone can also see as plainly obvious, the opposite was true -- I acknowledged all of the available evidence, including the conflicting evidence, rather than picking the one piece I liked the most, exaggerating its importance, and declaring it strong and ample to lay the foundation of a personal attack. Back in April, when I was explicitly asked for "my take", I expressed my opinion, based on all of the known facts, conditioned on an outcome of an allegation that was not yet known. Even today, in light of the current verdict, because of the way it was carefully crafted, my expressed opinion is not wrong - i.e. I expressed possibilities of both likely outcomes: if she remains eligible, she should keep it, AND implicitly, if she does not remain eligible, she should not keep it. In fact, I don't see how this stated opinion could ever be wrong, unless she gets to keep the record while being sanctioned, or does not while she is not. You can always tell yourself what you want, but the history of this thread backs up my account. What fascinates me lately is the psychology behind how my opinions, where my stated basis and thought process has usually been made clear, can bring out the worst traits in several posters here, putting themselves in denial, or fabricating strawmen, if not outright lies. Frankly, why does anyone care so much? If you don't agree with what I write, in a forum which encourages discussion and allows for all viewpoints to be expressed, when done civilly, why don't you simply dismiss it, and move on? What motivates some posters to resurrect non-controversial opinions in order to go out of their way to deliver a personal attack? I recently found an article which may shed some light on why my posts, disrupting the harmony of what would otherwise become an echo chamber, seems to offend some posters so much. Maybe I rely too much on facts and history and logic, while ignoring social aspects based on the primitive evolutionary fear of exclusion in society. To overcome some of this fact resistance, "Ultimately, (I) need to take social aspects into account when communicating facts and arguments with various groups."https://theconversation.com/conspiracy-theories-how-belief-is-rooted-in-evolution-not-ignorance-128803
Poor Eggy wrote:
Always the others that troll, right? Keep telling yourself that.