Uh oh looks like Wayne McMichael brought a nerf gun to a gun fight. You’re going to have to try harder than that to come up with a rational argument, big fella.

More vague complaining with no pertinent facts being cited.

I still don’t see any pertinent facts being cited.

Vague complaining is not a rebuttal.

I’m allowed to make a legitimate observation that happens to be tangential. Dismissing my point as irrelevant just because it’s not narrowly focused on the article’s content is avoidant, and framing me as being in ‘failure mode’ looks more like bullying than thoughtful engagement.

You selectively treat biased accounts as definitive while dismissing Weinstein’s. Merely linking to secondary sources as a basis for your pontificating is not ‘explaining’ anything. Ignoring these facts doesn’t bode well for your intellectual integrity and only makes you appear petulant. If anyone seems childish here, it’s the one sidestepping criticism instead of engaging with it thoughtfully.

Dick Woodman, once again you still don’t attend to any pertinent fact. Your last comment is just another long emotional complaint, and not a discussion of any facts to do with my article.

This is a serious failure mode. If you cannot repair it, I cannot help you.

My point is that you are erasing (and thus ignoring) the entire causal history of what happened. Which I explain in the article you are commenting on.

That you are choosing to do that tells us more about you than about what happened.

If you want to say anything pertinent as to what happened, you have to address the actual sequence of events. Not ignore them.

But since your method of argument is to ignore evidence altogether and just insult people, you have the epistemology of a child. And I can’t help children here. This space is for conversations among adults.

Reducing the critique to “emotional opinion” when it’s a critique of your tone and style reflects your typical dismissiveness. Mine is not a mere emotional reaction to being ‘wrong’. Accusing me of having a “broken epistemology” is just posturing and doubling down on your abrasive approach.

How arguments are presented matters in civil discourse. Kindness and humility enhances the impact of your reasoning, whether you want to acknowledge reality or not. People generally, and understandably, don’t respond well to being made to “eat shit” as Mason put it.

I suspect you also have some bad premises, since they’re shared by a lot of bullies of your type. The idea that everyone should be held to your extreme standard of inquiry is unrealistic, and fails to appreciate the practical ways most people navigate complex subjects.

I didn’t see any ‘correction’, unless you mean your counter-assertion that there was no actual force involved. Weinstein made a perfectly sensible point, to which your ‘correction’ is comically obtuse to any reasonable person.

I looked into the so-called ‘factual’ reporting you cited which bears every sign of being as uncharitable and biased as you.

Commenting was indeed a waste of time — not because I did not make any substantive points worth engaging with (I did), but because you’re, as it turns out, an incredibly weak thinker.

“…he viewed it…”

That’s the error-mode.

He was corrected. Then he doubled down. The escalation was all on him.

He could have simply handled all this rationally. And as to that, I already cover these details in the article, with extensive citations of factual reporting by multiple sources.

If you aren’t going to engage with the facts, then your comments are wasting everyone’s time here. Including yours.