Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowman
No, I did not know DeLorme. Nor do I know Brent. I am not well connected in this hobby. I accept that there are all sorts of shenanigans going on that I know little to nothing about. Usually, where there's smoke, there's fire. But I've also encountered what comes across to me as a whole lot of fog that people in this hobby seem to want to call smoke for some reason. It just seems to build and build and the next thing you know, there's this avalanche being built from logical fallacies and rampant speculation. This is the stuff I keep finding myself combatting. It's the conclusions that people draw from the "evidence" that I struggle with.
This screenshot topic is a prime example. It keeps getting passed around as though it were evidence of PWCC instructing their buyers to shill bid on their auctions. This doesn't appear to be true though.
|
Well when I post something and include an implicit or explicit conclusion, I can't at the same time post or cross-link 20 years' worth of knowledge that supports what I am saying, can I? A lot of other people who post have lots of context behind them too. What you're doing may make sense in some cases but not in others. Every post can't be freestanding. Most readers are regulars and have the context too.