Just now, Lacessit said:

AI is not a truth engine, it is a plausibility engine. It is based on a statistically significant mass of information which may be totally outdated.

Example: AI will tell you it is better to have a full tank of petrol than one only a quarter full, due to an increased risk of condensation of water in the headspace.

That risk no longer exists, because the ethanol content of most gasoline blends will easily accommodate any water derived from condensation.

If, however, you want to change the AI mind, it will stick with what it has, which is a mass of articles about condensation against one refutation.

It is like trying to turn an ocean liner 189 degrees with a dinghy.

Humans are capable of having new insights. AI isn't.

Yes, AI is not a truth engine. It's good for finding sources. Then you check the source. I once asked AI what was the last battleship on battleship combat in WW2, and it gave me the wrong answer.

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Humans are capable of having new insights. AI isn't.

Indeed. Would AI be capable of inventing the wheel, if it were given the same parameters men had in the Neolithic age?

Calling something “AI” isn’t an argument — it’s a mantra. - It gets repeated like it proves something… but it doesn’t address facts, logic, or evidence. It just signals that the person saying it doesn’t really understand what AI is.

Sadly, some people don't know what AI actually is or even the difference between a source and a search engine or the difference between search and research – if they did, they probably would never have become conspiracy theorists..

Most people using “AI” as a dismissal seem to think it’s just a search engine that spits out answers. It isn’t. And ironically, they’re probably using AI all day without even realising it.

e.g.

Face ID on your phone.
Google Maps routing your journey.
Netflix or Spotify recommendations.
Spam filters catching junk mail.
Social media feeds deciding what you see.

-       All AI.

 

AI is just a tool — like a calculator, or a spellchecker. It can be used well or badly. The output still needs to be judged on its accuracy, not dismissed because of how it was produced.

 

I’m dyslexic, so I use tools like Grammarly. What’s your favourite?

 

So the question isn’t “is it AI?” - The question is: is it correct?

 

If you disagree with something, explain why.
Point out the flaw.
Challenge the reasoning.

Because saying “that’s AI” isn’t debate.
It’s avoidance.

 

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Copy/pasting AI-generated arguments authoritatively is about as compelling and credible as using an Instagram filter:

Here's one with your filter removed...

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Indeed. Would AI be capable of inventing the wheel, if it were given the same parameters men had in the Neolithic age?

would you?

14 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

One issue I have is some of the conspiracy theorists seem like good guys, nice guys, even smart guys. I wonder why they would spend their time pondering the moon landing, flat earth, and may aspects of the vaccine issues when they could admit:

a. many of the arguments are extremely tenuous at best and often incredibly weak and often focus on some minor specific detail - a photo or a study by someone often not qualified in the area;

b. the gain to them if they do find some example of a corrupt study or a falsehood, of what had been considered an established fact, will likely only apply to the specific issue and will normally have limited or no broader implications;

c. there are so many more worthy issues of corruption and deception to look at in plain view that have much more significant implications to the world around us.

One doesn't have to look far to see the amazing work of scientists over recent decades and years - that fact alone may be difficult for them to accept when broadly accepted science is so linked in their minds with corruption and dark forces.

One wonders if it is that they like the notoriety of taking a contrary position and that they feel like classifying others as sheep gives them a support to their idea of their individuality and their idea of what intelligence is and it's applicability to them.

Why Do Intelligent People Fall for Conspiracy Theories?

One of the biggest myths in this whole debate is that conspiracy theorists are simply “stupid.” They’re not. In fact, quite a few are highly intelligent and well-educated. O=in fact they are often the ones who sow the seeds in the first place.

 

And that’s precisely the problem…

Research consistently shows that intelligence doesn’t make you immune to conspiracy thinking — it just makes you better at defending it. The issue isn’t a lack of brainpower, it’s how that brainpower is used.

 

1. Intelligence ≠ Objectivity
Highly intelligent people are often very good at something called motivated reasoning — starting with a conclusion and then using their intelligence to justify it. In other words, they don’t follow the evidence… they build a case around what they already want to believe.

 

2. Pattern-Seeking Gone Wrong
Smart people are good at spotting patterns. That’s useful — until it isn’t. The same ability can lead to seeing connections that simply aren’t there. Random events become “linked,” coincidence becomes “evidence,” and suddenly you’ve got a conspiracy.

 

3. The “I Know Something You Don’t” Effect
There’s a strong psychological pull in believing you’ve uncovered hidden knowledge. It feeds a sense of superiority — “I’ve worked it out, the rest are sheep.”
For some, that’s far more appealing than accepting boring, evidence-based explanations.

 

4. Control in a Chaotic World
Conspiracy theories simplify complex, messy reality. Instead of random events, uncertainty, or systemic problems, you get a clear villain and a neat explanation. That’s comforting — even if it’s wrong.

 

5. Identity and Belonging
Beliefs aren’t always about truth — they’re about tribe. Conspiracy theories often act as social glue, creating in-groups of “truth seekers” versus everyone else. Once identity is tied to the belief, changing your mind feels like losing your place in the group.

 

 

The Bottom Line

Intelligent people don’t fall for conspiracy theories because they can’t think.
They fall for them because they can think — and then use that ability to rationalise, defend, and entrench beliefs that aren’t supported by evidence.

In short:
They don’t lack intelligence — they misuse it.

And that’s a much harder problem to fix.

31 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Calling something “AI” isn’t an argument — it’s a mantra. - It gets repeated like it proves something… but it doesn’t address facts, logic, or evidence. It just signals that the person saying it doesn’t really understand what AI is.

I most probably understand it a lot better than you do. I am involved with people who chose to use it on a mass scale in the entertainment industry and are regretting it big time, because the deliverables are very far removed from the initial promise and the bubble is bursting.

34 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Most people using “AI” as a dismissal seem to think it’s just a search engine that spits out answers. It isn’t.

35 minutes ago, kwilco said:

AI is just a tool — like a calculator, or a spellchecker. It can be used well or badly. The output still needs to be judged on its accuracy, not dismissed because of how it was produced.

What you neglect to say or consider is that you can ask an AI tool to produce a whole argumentation for you, using a simple prompt.

I am posting an example below, where I copied in the first two paragraphs of your post into Gemini and asked it to produce a counter-argumentation explaining why calling out AI is actually a valid approach. The result was produced in a split second, I am pasting it below in italics. All the characteristics of AI-generated argumentation are there, just as they are in the numerous diatribes you posted in this thread. No thought, no competence, no knowledge and most importantly, no effort was required.

Actually copy/pasting this type of material in a debate and presenting it as your own output without mentioning that it is AI content is both very lazy and very dishonest. It is level 0 of intellectual interaction and ethics, and I will call it out as often as required… just as you like to call out 'misinformation' – each to their own, and if a few hypertrophied egos have to get bruised in the process, so be it.

---

Identifying the use of Artificial Intelligence is not a mere "mantra"—it is an act of intellectual transparency and epistemic rigor. Contrary to the original text’s suggestion, calling out AI is a valid critique of the reliability and nature of the information being presented.

Here is a counter-argumentation outlining why identifying AI usage is a legitimate and necessary part of modern discourse:

1. Distinguishing Probabilistic Output from Logical Reasoning

Generative AI does not process "facts" or "logic" in the human sense; it predicts the most statistically probable next token based on a massive dataset.

• The Argument: Calling something "AI" highlights that the statement does not stem from an understanding of the world, but from a calculation of probability.

• The Impact: This directly addresses the "logic" of the opponent. Since an AI can produce a perfectly structured but factually hallucinated response, identifying it as such is a valid challenge to the truth-value of the claim.

2. Accountability and the Burden of Proof

The original text conflates research (a human process of verification) with generation (a machine process of synthesis).

• The Argument: Identifying AI points to the absence of a responsible author. A human source can be held accountable for biases or errors; a machine cannot.

• The Impact: Knowing content is AI-generated helps distinguish between a primary source (actual data) and a synthetic engine that may smooth over nuances or repeat systemic biases without discernment.

3. Defense Against Information Overload (The "Bull<deleted> Asymmetry")

AI makes it incredibly easy to produce "evidence" at scale that looks like research but lacks depth.

• The Argument: Saying "this is AI" is a defense against the Brandolini's Law (the Bull<deleted> Asymmetry Principle). It is far easier to generate 1,000 pages of plausible-sounding nonsense than it is to debunk a single page of it.

• The Impact: Calling out AI is not a sign of ignorance about technology; it is an expert recognition of AI’s capacity to saturate public discourse with superficial content, making genuine research more difficult.

4. Reclaiming the Definition of "Research"

The original text mocks those who don't know the difference between a search engine and a source.

• The Argument: Ironically, AI is frequently used by those who don't want to do research, opting instead for a pre-digested summary.

• The Impact: Pointing out AI usage reminds the speaker that automated synthesis is not a substitute for methodological rigor. It flags that the "research" presented may just be a mirror of the user's own prompts or a loop of existing internet consensus.

Summary

Calling out AI is not an "escape hatch" from an argument; it is a safety label. Just as consumers have a right to know the ingredients in their food, participants in a debate have a right to know the origin of a reasoning. It is not an attack on the technology itself, but a refusal to let machine-generated probability be passed off as human-verified truth.

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I am involved with people who chose to use it

In other words, you don't!

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I most probably understand it a lot better than you do. I am involved with people who chose to use it on a mass scale in the entertainment industry and are regretting it big time, because the deliverables are very far removed from the initial promise and the bubble is bursting.

What you neglect to say or consider is that you can ask an AI tool to produce a whole argumentation for you, using a simple prompt.

I am posting an example below, where I copied in the first two paragraphs of your post into Gemini and asked it to produce a counter-argumentation explaining why calling out AI is actually a valid approach. The result was produced in a split second, I am pasting it below in italics. All the characteristics of AI-generated argumentation are there, just as they are in the numerous diatribes you posted in this thread. No thought, no competence, no knowledge and most importantly, no effort was required.

Actually copy/pasting this type of content in a debate and presenting it as your own output without mentioning that it is AI content is both very lazy and very dishonest. It is level 0 of intellectual interaction and ethics, and I will call it out as often as required… just as you like to call out 'misinformation' – each to their own, and if a few hypertrophied egos have to get bruised in the process, so be it.

---

Identifying the use of Artificial Intelligence is not a mere "mantra"—it is an act of intellectual transparency and epistemic rigor. Contrary to the original text’s suggestion, calling out AI is a valid critique of the reliability and nature of the information being presented.

Here is a counter-argumentation outlining why identifying AI usage is a legitimate and necessary part of modern discourse:

1. Distinguishing Probabilistic Output from Logical Reasoning

Generative AI does not process "facts" or "logic" in the human sense; it predicts the most statistically probable next token based on a massive dataset.

• The Argument: Calling something "AI" highlights that the statement does not stem from an understanding of the world, but from a calculation of probability.

• The Impact: This directly addresses the "logic" of the opponent. Since an AI can produce a perfectly structured but factually hallucinated response, identifying it as such is a valid challenge to the truth-value of the claim.

2. Accountability and the Burden of Proof

The original text conflates research (a human process of verification) with generation (a machine process of synthesis).

• The Argument: Identifying AI points to the absence of a responsible author. A human source can be held accountable for biases or errors; a machine cannot.

• The Impact: Knowing content is AI-generated helps distinguish between a primary source (actual data) and a synthetic engine that may smooth over nuances or repeat systemic biases without discernment.

3. Defense Against Information Overload (The "Bull<deleted> Asymmetry")

AI makes it incredibly easy to produce "evidence" at scale that looks like research but lacks depth.

• The Argument: Saying "this is AI" is a defense against the Brandolini's Law (the Bull<deleted> Asymmetry Principle). It is far easier to generate 1,000 pages of plausible-sounding nonsense than it is to debunk a single page of it.

• The Impact: Calling out AI is not a sign of ignorance about technology; it is an expert recognition of AI’s capacity to saturate public discourse with superficial content, making genuine research more difficult.

4. Reclaiming the Definition of "Research"

The original text mocks those who don't know the difference between a search engine and a source.

• The Argument: Ironically, AI is frequently used by those who don't want to do research, opting instead for a pre-digested summary.

• The Impact: Pointing out AI usage reminds the speaker that automated synthesis is not a substitute for methodological rigor. It flags that the "research" presented may just be a mirror of the user's own prompts or a loop of existing internet consensus.

Summary

Calling out AI is not an "escape hatch" from an argument; it is a safety label. Just as consumers have a right to know the ingredients in their food, participants in a debate have a right to know the origin of a reasoning. It is not an attack on the technology itself, but a refusal to let machine-generated probability be passed off as human-verified truth.

this shows how you can't use AI and know very little about making an argument – can't you see the difference???

Just now, kwilco said:

In other words, you don't!

I use it all the time, it is a great productivity tool. It is incapable of producing quality creative content, though (as compellingly demonstrated in this very thread), unlike what was fallaciously and unilaterally claimed over the past three years.

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

this shows how you can't use AI and know very little about making an argument – can't you see the difference???

Thank you for your insights, kwilco.

8 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I most probably understand it a lot better than you do.

This may be the biggest whopper you're ever produced.

Please enlighten us with a 2 word synopsis of the fundamental algorithm/procedure/process that is underpinning the recent AI models?

This is a super easy question. It should take you 5 seconds.

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

unlike what was fallaciously and unilaterally claimed over the past three years.

Sounds like it is the same thing the flat-earthers do. Are you irritated because they stole a page out of your playbook?

14 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Indeed. Would AI be capable of inventing the wheel, if it were given the same parameters men had in the Neolithic age?

It depends on whether AI would generate a convergence of trial and error simulations which ended up with a wheel as the most efficient way of moving stuff over land.

The answer is yes, probably.

AI is a tool. It does pretty well at certain tasks. It is probably designing new medications as I write.

If, however, you rely on it for information, you are getting a probabilistic outcome, not necessarily what is true.

Perhaps I should revise my previous post to say AI does not learn until the mass of new information outweighs the old.

20 hours ago, Lacessit said:

AI is not a truth engine, it is a plausibility engine. It is based on a statistically significant mass of information which may be totally outdated.

Example: AI will tell you it is better to have a full tank of petrol than one only a quarter full, due to an increased risk of condensation of water in the headspace.

That risk no longer exists, because the ethanol content of most gasoline blends will easily accommodate any water derived from condensation.

If, however, you want to change the AI mind, it will stick with what it has, which is a mass of articles about condensation against one refutation.

It is like trying to turn an ocean liner 189 degrees with a dinghy.

Humans are capable of having new insights. AI isn't.

Sadly, you don't know what AI is or how to use it – you are referring to search engine use, not a writing tool. (how do you explain Grammarly?) - Its applications are endless; it's not a single definable object. AI is also not a source... Sources are usually primary, secondary or tertiary, but conspiracy theorists are not critical of their sources. Anyone who has been to uni and done research will know what research and analysis are and how to express a reasoned opinion... Letting others do that for you is a mental weakness common in conspiracy theorists. It's not critical thought; it's mimicry

Have you noticed how much time conspiracy theorists spend (or waste) “researching”?

They will spend hours combing the internet, producing long, detailed posts – yet still miss the point, avoid the question, or rely on obviously questionable sources?

 

It’s not because they’re doing better research. It’s because they’re doing something else entirely.

Most of this behaviour is driven by psychology, not logic. Conspiracy theories offer certainty in a messy world, a sense of control, and the appeal of being “in the know” while everyone else is supposedly clueless. That’s a powerful mix.

 

Online, it becomes a group activity. People build narratives together, reinforce each other, and reward the most dramatic claims — not the most accurate ones. They inhabit echo chambers from where “evidence” is crowdsourced, but only if it supports the belief.

 

Of course we now recognise that there are some very basic thinking errors at play: time and again we see confirmation bias, i.e., only looking for what agrees with them, and pattern-seeking, finding connections where none exist. A distrust of real sources — while trusting random ones and self-sealing logic, e.g., any contradiction becomes “part of the conspiracy”

 

So the long posts and endless links aren’t a sign of rigorous thinking — they’re often a sign of the opposite: starting with a conclusion and working backwards to justify it.

In short:

It looks like research, but it’s actually belief maintenance.

6 minutes ago, kwilco said:

In short:
It looks like research, but it’s actually belief maintenance.

Thus very akin to pharma-funded research...

If the conspiracy theorists are correct and the moon landings, JFK and COVID were all hoaxes......so what.

What is their purpose in life?

10 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

Thus very akin to pharma-funded research...

read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre

10 hours ago, emptypockets said:

If the conspiracy theorists are correct and the moon landings, JFK and COVID were all hoaxes......so what.

What is their purpose in life?

Don't forget that both the current moon programmes – the US and Chinese – are both hoaxes – they never explain why or even at which point the hoax starts...like apparently the "contraption" at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida is a hoax designed to fly "beyond visibility". I guess the Chinese are doing the same – it's nice to see the superpowers getting along so well.

Do conspiracy theory “creators” actually believe their own nonsense? Some do. Plenty don’t. And that’s the part people seem to miss.

 

There’s this comforting idea that the people churning out conspiracy theories are just misguided truth-seekers. In reality, a fair number of them know exactly what they’re doing — and it has nothing to do with “truth.”

 

Conspiracy content is engagement gold. (just look at the length of this thread!) - It’s cheap to produce, requires zero evidence, and reliably pulls in clicks, shares, outrage, and followers. In other words, it pays — financially or socially. Why bother with facts when fantasy performs better?

 

Then you’ve got the wind-up merchants. The ones posting increasingly ridiculous claims just to see who bites. They’re not confused — they’re entertained. Every angry reply is a win.

And let’s not pretend politics isn’t involved. Conspiracy theories are perfect tools if you want to smear opponents or push an agenda without the inconvenience of proof. Just throw something inflammatory out there and let the internet do the rest.

Which it does. Very efficiently.

 

Because once it’s out there, it gets picked up by people who do believe it — and off it goes. That’s the whole point. You don’t need everyone to be gullible, just enough to keep it circulating.

 

That’s where the old term “useful idiots” comes in. Not meant as a personal insult — just a description of the mechanism. The original source doesn’t need credibility if others are willing to supply it for free.

Some are just really good writers who seem to enjoy the exercise of writing itself – it’s still a pity that what they write is bat<deleted> crazy….

 

And here’s the twist: repeat something often enough, build a following around it, and even the original peddler can start half-believing their own material. Or at least convincing themselves it’s justified for some “greater cause".

So no, not all conspiracy theorists are true believers.

Some are just running a very low-effort, high-reward game — where being wrong doesn’t matter, getting attention does, and other people do the heavy lifting for them.

11 hours ago, kwilco said:

Sadly, you don't know what AI is or how to use it – you are referring to search engine use, not a writing tool. (how do you explain Grammarly?) - Its applications are endless; it's not a single definable object. AI is also not a source... Sources are usually primary, secondary or tertiary, but conspiracy theorists are not critical of their sources. Anyone who has been to uni and done research will know what research and analysis are and how to express a reasoned opinion... Letting others do that for you is a mental weakness common in conspiracy theorists. It's not critical thought; it's mimicry

I gave you a 'thanks' for that as it looks a lot more as if you typed it (at least partly) by yourself. Please continue in that direction. There still is the "its not… it's" BS, but it is a significant step forward nonetheless.

18 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Are you irritated because they stole a page out of your playbook?

I'm talking about this (one of several examples). The end user doesn't want this model and therefore the market complies because ultimately, the end user decides.

14 hours ago, kwilco said:

Sadly, you don't know what AI is or how to use it – you are referring to search engine use, not a writing tool. (how do you explain Grammarly?) - Its applications are endless; it's not a single definable object. AI is also not a source... Sources are usually primary, secondary or tertiary, but conspiracy theorists are not critical of their sources. Anyone who has been to uni and done research will know what research and analysis are and how to express a reasoned opinion... Letting others do that for you is a mental weakness common in conspiracy theorists. It's not critical thought; it's mimicry

Sadly, you seem to think attacking everyone else on this thread, by pretending you are omniscient on the topic, somehow gives you increased credibility.

I don't know how you formed the opinion I am a conspiracy theorist, and don't care. Your put-down about "has been to uni" demonstrates your ignorance, I am a retired research scientist with multiple publications in the field of analytical chemistry.

I am posting facts about the flaws in AI. If you don't like them, I have others.

On 3/28/2026 at 12:13 AM, rattlesnake said:

It is incapable of producing quality creative content, though (as compellingly demonstrated in this very thread), unlike what was fallaciously and unilaterally claimed over the past three years.

On 3/28/2026 at 10:04 AM, gamb00ler said:

Sounds like it is the same thing the flat-earthers do. Are you irritated because they stole a page out of your playbook?

7 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

I'm talking about this (one of several examples). The end user doesn't want this model and therefore the market complies because ultimately, the end user decides.

Once again it seems you can follow along.

you claimed "fallaciously and unilaterally".

That is the comment that inspired my reply.

How did you arrive at 'unilaterally'? You've misunderstood its meaning.... not an uncommon failure on your part.

Perhaps you meant 'universally' which would be appropriate in the context but still not supported by evidence.

3 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

Once again it seems you can follow along.

you claimed "fallaciously and unilaterally".

That is the comment that inspired my reply.

How did you arrive at 'unilaterally'? You've misunderstood its meaning.... not an uncommon failure on your part.

Perhaps you meant 'universally' which would be appropriate in the context but still not supported by evidence.

'Unilaterally' in the sense that it was a top-down decision, essentially from boards of directors and shareholders who don't understand what things are like on the ground and failed to consult with those who do.

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Sadly, you seem to think attacking everyone else on this thread, by pretending you are omniscient on the topic, somehow gives you increased credibility.

I don't know how you formed the opinion I am a conspiracy theorist, and don't care. Your put-down about "has been to uni" demonstrates your ignorance, I am a retired research scientist with multiple publications in the field of analytical chemistry.

I am posting facts about the flaws in AI. If you don't like them, I have others.

As soon as you use the argument of "qualification" – secundum quid et simpliciter – you lose credibility and if you use the word "fact", you also use credibility

What if you spend less time on fallacious ad hominems and concentrate on the discussion? Remember, it's the message, not the messenger, that's important...

If you like qualifications, here's a list of highly qualified people...

Highly qualified conspiracy theorists

 

Shiva Ayyadurai

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Naomi Wolf

Dr. Peter Duesberg

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

David Icke

Bret Weinstein

All bat<deleted> crazy conspiracy theorists?

40 minutes ago, kwilco said:

42 minutes ago, kwilco said:

As soon as you use the argument of "qualification" – secundum quid et simpliciter – you lose credibility and if you use the word "fact", you also use credibility

What if you spend less time on fallacious ad hominems and concentrate on the discussion? Remember, it's the message, not the messenger, that's important...

If you like qualifications, here's a list of highly qualified people...

Highly qualified conspiracy theorists

 

Shiva Ayyadurai

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Naomi Wolf

Dr. Peter Duesberg

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

David Icke

Bret Weinstein

All bat<deleted> crazy conspiracy theorists?

IIRC you initially stated I knew nothing about AI because I used it for research. You said I did not know its use as a writing tool, and asked If I had ever heard of Grammarly.

As it happens, I don't need Grammarly or spellcheckers, as I have had a very good education.

Here's an excerpt of a piece I wrote on corporate gaslighting. I had AI polish it:

"The Audacity of the "Important" Call

Our commitment to your frustration begins the moment you try to reach

us. There is no greater feat of corporate insincerity than the automated

greeting: "Your call is important to us." Let’s be clear: If your call were

truly important, a human would have answered it. Instead, you’ve been

placed in a digital purgatory.

• The "Dumb" Tier: We will drain your phone credit while a recording

reminds you—fifteen times—that an operator will be with you

"shortly." We use the word "shortly" in the same way geologists use

the word "aeon."

• The "Sadistic" Tier: We will assault your ears with self-

congratulatory advertisements for products you’re currently calling

to complain about, or hold music so distorted it sounds like a dial-up

modem screaming into a pillow.

Eventually, you might reach a human. And because we are "Cheapskate

Inc.," that human will be located in a distant time zone, speaking a dialect

of English that requires a specialized degree in linguistics to decipher. It’s

not "global outsourcing"; it’s our way of saying, "We'd rather you just

hung up."

That excerpt might sound like conspiracy theory to you. What happens in real life?

You are not the first poster I have encountered that makes dumb assumptions about people they don't know. Unfortunately, you probably won't be the last.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

As soon as you use the argument of "qualification" – secundum quid et simpliciter – you lose credibility and if you use the word "fact", you also use credibility

What if you spend less time on fallacious ad hominems and concentrate on the discussion? Remember, it's the message, not the messenger, that's important...

If you like qualifications, here's a list of highly qualified people...

Highly qualified conspiracy theorists

 

Shiva Ayyadurai

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Naomi Wolf

Dr. Peter Duesberg

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

David Icke

Bret Weinstein

All bat<deleted> crazy conspiracy theorists?

Yes, pretty much.

2 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

'Unilaterally' in the sense that it was a top-down decision, essentially from boards of directors and shareholders who don't understand what things are like on the ground and failed to consult with those who do.

LOL.... that's what the board of directors is tasked with.... making decisions, especially if, as you say, they had the support of the shareholders.... not the correct usage for 'unilateral'... it probably just sounded good (and nefarious) to you and you didn't care if it was applicable. But then.... you're a fiction writer... with a tendency towards emotion loaded content rather than facts....in the entertainment business.... LOL

Sorry.... no sale here.