Except the proof needs to come from Dom, not yoisi or Siegfried.
Putting aside who is who and who may or may not be an alt, Dom's argument is silly. The thread has been linked. We can all see the "evidence." I can see how someone might get the wrong idea, and I do believe it was an honest mistake at first (although now Dom's being stubborn and no longer reasonable, since he's already made up his mind), but the fact is the "evidence" doesn't show anything even close to certainty and, if you give it even the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt...it shows nothing at all.
There was no "slip of the tongue," yoisi/Siegfried didn't "out themselves" or whatever. There's nothing here, Dom is being extremely silly, and I can get why people are pissed off.
Okay, but all Dom has is “I read this comment one way, it turns out it could reasonably be read a different way that doesn’t imply what I thought it did.” At best that’s a “maybe this guy could be an alt, I’ll watch both of them more.”
But Dom jumped right to “he IS an alt.” Plus, once you look at the user history and realize that Siegfried has a year of consistent history her, the “he’s an alt” theory starts looking sillier.
I mean, what’s the reasonable “persuasion” for convincing a guy that’s clearly determined to believe only one thing?
More importantly, that was a response to you commenting on your opinion, not Dom’s, and either way it’s quite correct for Kienan to point out that there is no good evidence for the alt theory, so, again, if the importance is in persuasion, how come you aren’t going “gee, the lack of evidence makes the argument that he’s an alt look unpersuasive”? Instead you’re reversing burden of proof.
But Dom jumped right to “he IS an alt.” Plus, once you look at the user history and realize that Siegfried has a year of consistent history her, the “he’s an alt” theory starts looking sillier.
Looking at Siegfried's history, they don't sound alike, although both are national socialists.
I mean, what’s the reasonable “persuasion” for convincing a guy that’s clearly determined to believe only one thing?
And you figured that, how exactly? It seemed to me that he made the conclusion based on that conversation, not on the entire posting history.
how come you aren’t going “gee, the lack of evidence makes the argument that he’s an alt look unpersuasive”?
Except the proof needs to come from Dom, not yoisi or Siegfried.
Putting aside who is who and who may or may not be an alt, Dom's argument is silly. The thread has been linked. We can all see the "evidence." I can see how someone might get the wrong idea, and I do believe it was an honest mistake at first (although now Dom's being stubborn and no longer reasonable, since he's already made up his mind), but the fact is the "evidence" doesn't show anything even close to certainty and, if you give it even the tiniest bit of the benefit of the doubt...it shows nothing at all.
There was no "slip of the tongue," yoisi/Siegfried didn't "out themselves" or whatever. There's nothing here, Dom is being extremely silly, and I can get why people are pissed off.
This is not a cross-examination. If you want someone to reverse his decision, persuade him.
Okay, but all Dom has is “I read this comment one way, it turns out it could reasonably be read a different way that doesn’t imply what I thought it did.” At best that’s a “maybe this guy could be an alt, I’ll watch both of them more.”
But Dom jumped right to “he IS an alt.” Plus, once you look at the user history and realize that Siegfried has a year of consistent history her, the “he’s an alt” theory starts looking sillier.
I mean, what’s the reasonable “persuasion” for convincing a guy that’s clearly determined to believe only one thing?
More importantly, that was a response to you commenting on your opinion, not Dom’s, and either way it’s quite correct for Kienan to point out that there is no good evidence for the alt theory, so, again, if the importance is in persuasion, how come you aren’t going “gee, the lack of evidence makes the argument that he’s an alt look unpersuasive”? Instead you’re reversing burden of proof.
Looking at Siegfried's history, they don't sound alike, although both are national socialists.
And you figured that, how exactly? It seemed to me that he made the conclusion based on that conversation, not on the entire posting history.
Didn't I say that I'm not persuaded?