>>Like I said, I think this generally supports our argument, but we should be careful to consider it gospel, lest we end up no better than the people who assume the Rodda paper is fact without questioning it.


I agree with you. Noting is gospel. But it is consistent with all the other circumstantial evidence.

Having said that, the overall attitude is what I object to. It's not up to me or you or anyone else to disprove a totally unsupported belief or claim that others put forth, much less base laws oppressive laws on. People like Steph should be criticizing those who are causing and making laws based on baseless speculation, not those who are trying to fight the baseless speculation. It's a$$ backwards.

[ Show Entire Thread ]