That wasn't my take - it was more broadly a 'given past statements and accompanying behaviour, we can't trust future statements to align with future behaviour'.
Can you more explicitly describe what the X and Y points you allude to are?
Can you more explicitly describe what the X and Y points you allude to are?
The article as a whole just seems libelous? Almost personal?
Maybe I’m just old, but I don’t see the appeal?
If you’re trying to convince people, then you should probably have a convincing argument. Otherwise it feels like kiwifarms-posting with a megaphone.
Isn't that basically the history of the internet?