Anecdotes & Trust in the Backroom

[Rodion Romanovich]

I judge what is written after how credible it is, by reflex. As it turns out, most people here seem to hold sane opinions based on their percepts of reality and common sense logic and can discuss their arguments openly and change opinion when they were wrong because they have no hidden agenda - their opinions are based on the facts they have at hand, and they tell their arguments aloud so they can be debated. I hope I too am considered by others to be like that, however I don't always have any opinion at all and instead often end up trying to act as a bridge between the different sides in the debates, with varying results

I tend to read through and analyze even the at first sight most insane of statements, because often there are traces of reason in everything that is said, no matter how insane the summary of it sounds at first. Things that on the theoretical level have got 9 things right and 1 thing wrong can end up sounding extremely insane in it's practical application, but it still contains 9 facts worth listening to. Refuting a concatenation of statements and believing you refuted every element of the statement is against the rules of logic, btw:
not (A and B and C) does NOT imply (not A) and (not B) and (not C).