“And BTW, appreciation does not pay the bills. He better be getting his paychecks on time and I trust it will be time and a half for his work this Labor Day.”
A fine example.
You do not agree what his ideas. And appear to believe that the only way he could present the conclusions he does is if he was paid to do so.
Not a different assessment of the facts. Not different opinions arrived at in good faith. Not simply being mistaken, the result of unclear thinking, ignorant or just plain old wrong.
Instead he must have been paid to says what he does.
How does that bring anything to the discussion?
Can you imagine in any way that his comments can be taken at face value as having been arrived at honestly or in good faith?
I'm sorry -- did my post hit too close to home for you???