Re: Free Speech, Part II
Same post as the other thread....
This isn't really about evidence or the right to express an opinion. It's about trying to angle via power/controls to insure that your opinion either takes root or pushes out your oposition. Kevin and Patrick aren't going to help, either side.
Of course that raises real problems for you bushrat. Not because you are wrong, but because in the absence of smoking guns, people tend to fall back on gut. Sundles has been in this place for a looong time. He has earned the respect of a great many. Even those who earnestly disagree with him (I can't speek for them) would, I believe, generally say they find him to be honest if extreme.
He has a track record, it lends folks in the absence of pure facts to give him benefit of the doubt in matters of uncertainty. You don't get that benefit. Because it's earned. You can't get it inserted by a moderator. It can't be removed from Tim.
If you want to make the point that Tim's assertions aren't supported, make the counter assertion. "I say that NO Canadian outfitters EVER poison wolves." It has the same basis without facts. It's equally valid on its face.
Problem still remains though, and that's the crux. We are left to make assumptions on evidence not present and we only have our own common sense and the weight we lend to the message maker. You can't email someone in Canada, lein on a moderator or otherwise get respect and credibility added to your stature. It's not like adding RAM to your computer.
Because this is a community and not a random forum this is the only way you have to go. People here know each other, if only cyber-ly. On a random street corner you'd have far less problem "proving" to the satisfaction of an audience your point. This isn't a street corner.
Angelfarts Sausage Co. Get way-back, powered by Angelfarts.