-EA preaches rationalism. As part of rationalism, to understand something truly, you need to investigate both sides of the argument. Yet the author specifically decided to only look at one side of the argument. How can that possibly be a rationalist approach to truth-seeking? If you’re going to write a defamation article about someone, especially in EA, please make sure to go about it with the logical rigor you would give any issue.
This point, and similar arguments made by other commenters above, seems to not fully grasp:
1) These complaints were made over a year ago 2) Non-linear were given time to respond prior to publication (just not an indefinite amount of time) 3) Non-linear can respond by commenting themselves at any point
I’m very disappointed in the author for writing a non-rigorous, slanderous accusation of an organization that does a whole lot of good, especially when I know firsthand that it’s false.
Would you be able to give some specific examples of claims you believe are false, and why they are false?
This point, and similar arguments made by other commenters above, seems to not fully grasp:
1) These complaints were made over a year ago
2) Non-linear were given time to respond prior to publication (just not an indefinite amount of time)
3) Non-linear can respond by commenting themselves at any point
Would you be able to give some specific examples of claims you believe are false, and why they are false?