1 point·58 minutes ago·edited 53 minutes ago
I am not defending Dutton or his ideas, but analyzing the article about him, and, as part of that, how what is in the article relates to the sources. If that has the effect of defending him, so be it, but if he is actually a “pseudoscientist” wouldn’t that show up in the study? I have just begun the page, and anyone is welcome to comment, and the correction of errors is especially invited. So far, it’s just the page linked to the RW article and the two Smith socks which created it.http://lomaxcf.grimshawassociates.com/rationalwiki/edward-dutton/
This avalanche of SPAs turn up [deleted] quickly, so I’m noting the name. https://www.reddit.com/user/verystrangebuttrue
Nobody who is anybody is buying this SPA spam spew, so far, anyway.
What is really cool about SPA spew is that one can make directly contradictory claims, such “you will never sue anybody” and “you file law suits against people who ban you for trolling,” both deceptive, but consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, right?