>You've made a very concrete claim here: "PG appears to be a dishonest writer," and then showed no evidence of dishonesty.
This is wrong. Here is my evidence: His articles are exclusively self serving. He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. This is dishonest behavior, even if it isnt an outright lie, in the same way that saying "vaccines caused my cousins balls to inflate" would be dishonest even if it weren't a lie. It's dishonest in the same way the church shouting down Copernicus was dishonest. The dishonesty is omission + ignorance, not a direct lie.
I and GP made this point to you many times, and you have continuously chosen to lower the wool over your eyes.
This is wrong. Here is my evidence: His articles are exclusively self serving. He consistently ignores and degrades canons of thought that might threaten his ideas. This is dishonest behavior, even if it isnt an outright lie, in the same way that saying "vaccines caused my cousins balls to inflate" would be dishonest even if it weren't a lie. It's dishonest in the same way the church shouting down Copernicus was dishonest. The dishonesty is omission + ignorance, not a direct lie.
I and GP made this point to you many times, and you have continuously chosen to lower the wool over your eyes.
>It sounds like we'll have to agree to disagree.
I see no need to agree to this.