For every one of those people you can have one, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, that dismissed your cause. Don’t go down this road for confirmation, that’s how self reinforcing cults are made.
For every one of those people you can have one, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, that dismissed your cause. Don’t go down this road for confirmation, that’s how self reinforcing cults are made.
I didn’t go down any road for confirmation. I put your single testimony in a more realistic perspective. Not believing one person who seems to have a highly emotional agenda isn’t ‘cultish’, it’s just practical.
I didn’t go down any road for confirmation. I put your single testimony in a more realistic perspective. Not believing one person who seems to have a highly emotional agenda isn’t ‘cultish’, it’s just practical.
I think you grossly overestimate how much emotional agenda can disagreement with counterfactual people produce.
I didn’t go down any road for confirmation. I put your single testimony in a more realistic perspective. Not believing one person who seems to have a highly emotional agenda isn’t ‘cultish’, it’s just practical.
I think you grossly overestimate how much emotional agenda can disagreement with counterfactual people produce.
This doesn’t make sense as a reply to the context. I’m not sure it makes any sense as a matter of English grammar either.
For every one of those people you can have one, or ten, or a hundred, or a thousand, that dismissed your cause. Don’t go down this road for confirmation, that’s how self reinforcing cults are made.
I didn’t go down any road for confirmation. I put your single testimony in a more realistic perspective. Not believing one person who seems to have a highly emotional agenda isn’t ‘cultish’, it’s just practical.
I think you grossly overestimate how much emotional agenda can disagreement with counterfactual people produce.
edit: botched the link.
This doesn’t make sense as a reply to the context. I’m not sure it makes any sense as a matter of English grammar either.