I'm obviously not him, but I've seen his posts for years. Occasionally I'm wondering what he's smoking to be honest. But the vast majority of the time I find him FAR more level headed than most around here. He doesn't jump to conclusions, he doesn't assume the worst, he doesn't get swept up in hysteria. He strikes me as someone who is quite reasonable, but demands hard evidence for wild claims. He takes a more scientific approach. I've never gotten the impression that he has a particular agenda beyond calling a spade a spade (with appropriate proof of course). He also seems to use a little common sense, which seems to be sorely lacking around here. He stands out to me. But only because I find him to be one of the few regulars around here that isn't an idiot. This whole concept of "planned obsolescence" for example. It really doesn't make a lot of sense. Yet there's no shortage of people around here ready to buy into it without any hard evidence, even when it defies reason. Still, I have no doubt that if it were proven as fact, he would accept it and adjust his point of view. I suspect he would even own up to be wrong.
For my own opinions, this is a real problem. Is it malicious? I don't think so, but I'm willing to listen to any valid arguments you might have. But like him, show me evidence, not conjecture. And like him, I understand the difference between the two. It's clear from reading these forums that a lot of people don't seem to get the difference there. Too many people around here think correlation = causation. He doesn't. That alone gets my respect.
So there's another point of view for you to ponder.
