Reply #56: Hi Verve... The why [View All]

[geo]

Hi Verve,

Thanks for saying I am nice, btw. :)

A quick response to this last post. You said, "you do not want people looking into Cybernet. Maybe, you're just trying to be nice and trying to save us from the dead end headache."

Yes I am trying to save you all from a headache many of us have already dealt with, but at the same time I did urge people, specifically to read until they were sure of it themselves. I have been consistent in urging people to see the lack of coherency for themselves.

You also mentioned "Yet, you don't give solid evidence as to why we shouldn't" look into this.

My problem is with the post far more than the topic. Also, with regard to who provides what proof, the burden is on the claimant. My claim is that the piece is incoherent, which means it is on me to prove it. I point to the piece and say urge others to read enough to see it for themselves. That is the evidence I offer, and it is there for independant evaluation. On the other hand, the evidence offered in the claims made in the post is just not there. There are plenty of statements of fact (perhaps) and links, but there is no coherency and the relevance of the statements of fact and links just aren't there.

I don't like what was posted. I think it serves to derail discussion much more germain to our interests. The instances of such are repetative, and I hope by discussing the validity of these posts actively we will fall for such ploys less and less often.

We shouldn't censor even the most illogical posts, and likewise we shouldn't hesitate to blast away at the claims made in such posts. This is what makes good discussion. :)

Warmly,

George