Whatever Lance... You're the expert, what could I possible know for certain about anything related to the Sherman Ranch case? Or television? Or science? Or our view of our consensual reality?
Typically, you don't seem to pull that kind of thing. Here, you've belittled Lance's position by mocking his ability for expertise on the matter, and making the allusion that you are probably more qualified.
This particular line could be read several ways, I could have chosen to read it in this way.
Ya think? Why do you always talk down to folks and insinuate that the rest of us are frick'in idiots? Nevermind... I don't want to know... Oh and you're welcome for the intell on the still-unfolding "death on the Sherman Ranch story" and thanks for acknowledging my years of hard work on the case (not!)—Perhaps there's more to this "death on the ranch" scenario than meets the eye?...naw...
Years of hard work, or you've been there twice?
If by years of hard work you mean reviewing stories and follow up, cool. But the reason he may not have seen fit to praise that particular concept is that it is true of anyone with an interest in that particular subject. Everyone with an interest has been reviewing stories. There is no special qualification on your end, there.
It is also here that your position on the death is implied. That's fair enough. Again, it's not your position that i had a problem with, but how you choose to bolster it.
That's about what I saw, no shock there, and no reason the show would need a consent form to run the interview. Bigelow is a public figure out in public and he answered the questions.
Sure, if you say so Frank
Dismissive attitude backed by the implied argument from authority.
Like I said, "...nothing to see here folks, move along.
Someone makes an observation that doesn't gel with your worldview and you imply that that view is naive. You don't offer a sound counterpoint, other than to suggest that this view is like that of hoy polloi cattle who can be told to "move along," believing that there is "nothing to see here." Your position in the forums, and with the show, grants you a social weight when it comes to this kind of thing -- that means you can suggestively "strong arm" on the pure weight of influence when the nature of your counterpoint is "you're naive, and anyone who thinks this is naive."
Whether or not you did these things intentionally, you did them. In this case, you did exactly what you accused Lance of doing. You implied that there must be something off about a person's worldview, rather than build an argument against whatever position they had that ran contrary to your own. Just because you did it with subtlety, doesn't mean you didn't do it.
You have the right to your opinion, and if that is your opinion, that's fine. However, Lance also has the right to his opinion, so there's no right to call him out on something you were going to do two posts from that one.
Again, I only felt it necessary to mention this, because you typically don't seem to present your views in this way, but I've also not been here long. I just didn't think some of your commentary was fair, especially given your position.