Posted: Oct 07, 2015 1:45 pm
DavidMcC wrote:No doubt, you think you've worded this very cleverly, so that I am included in those assumed to make "unsupported assertions". The big problem with that is that, in my case, the "unsupported assertions" are not about science or politics, but about someone's posting history on this site - hardly a comparable issue.
No doubt, you will now say I am being "paranoid"!But the reference in this vague post about the "disturbingly quite a few older ones" will no doubt be understood by many as a reference to me, making the "science" of posting on this site somehow relevant. Rest assured, however, that I don't make scientific arguments that I cannot back up with citations.
David, I've noted in the past how 'Not Everything Is About You!', and in this case it is precisely the same situation.
While I think your discursive malfeasance is plain to all, I can only assure you that (for some inexplicable reason) I hadn't actually thought of you at all when I wrote this thread.
But thanks for volunteering yourself!
