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”?
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?