I think the distinction (without any particular beef) is whether it’s an informed opinion. After you plough through all the evidence, see the patterns and the way in which she responded on the stand it’s very difficult to see how she could be innocent.
When people counter this, it tends to be with generalities such as ‘it could be a coverup/ institutional failing.’ But I haven’t seen many NGs explaining how there could be this many anomalies, or how so many bizarre events could occur following her shift patterns- or look at the broader picture with this in mind.
Disagreement is going to be quite natural, and much as in court, a less convincing/popular opinion is going to need to evidence itself. What seems to happen is rather than providing data the individual sees it as a personal attack. I think people here are prepared to listen to a good counter argument but they aren’t going to pretend to believe something they find implausible to be ‘nice.’
Partly I think the ‘just be nice’ stance can unintentionally enable an awful lot of bad behaviour. Not the posters, but in society as a whole.
*Edited to elaborate a bit
Last edited:
anything else is just wrong
) particular bit. What did she say/do?
