I think the piece is very over the top. Even if all the points were correct, it wouldn’t support the damning conclusion. Some of the points seem fair, some are wrong, and some are extremely uncharitable. If you are going to level accusations of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation, then you need to have very strong arguments. This post falls very far short of that
To be clear: Did you downvote Siebe’s post because you disagree, the main post because you disagree, Siebe’s post because you think it’s unhelpful, or the main post because you think it’s unhelpful?
I think the piece is very over the top. Even if all the points were correct, it wouldn’t support the damning conclusion. Some of the points seem fair, some are wrong, and some are extremely uncharitable. If you are going to level accusations of dishonesty and deliberate misrepresentation, then you need to have very strong arguments. This post falls very far short of that
To be clear: Did you downvote Siebe’s post because you disagree, the main post because you disagree, Siebe’s post because you think it’s unhelpful, or the main post because you think it’s unhelpful?