Replies

I generally don't mean to be aggressive in debate, just terse, efficient.

It is known, by a discerning student of human behavior such as myself.

Sometimes I "get into it" with an opponent.

Me too. The "use of force continuum" applies here.

I'd be one of the last people you would want to count on, in that regard.

Disagree. You would be one of the first on my list. You are both a superlative analyst and sifter of fact, with a well based general knowledge of many things. Like Marisa Tomei in "My Cousin Vinny." General automobile knowledge, with selected areas of specific expertise. We all bring something to the table.

I trust ZERO of what I read on FR. Literally ZERO

I ascribe a certain amount of trust and credibility to every source that opens their mouth, based on past observation and reliability of past information. Sort of a "profiling" if you will. I assume we all do that to a certain extent.

There is also a non-insignificant population that finds me wrong and a boor.

Eff 'em. You do you.

By not counting on me, I was referring to absence of remark, not to content when I do remark! I used to try to correct "the forum" on certain beliefs. Man, what a waste of time.

I'm more likely to let you persist in error than I am to remark on it.

And yes, on trusting what I read here, of course I credit certain posters with most often being on the money, with experience and education backing up their statements. What I meant to say in 100% not trusting is actually a subset of contentions. when a fact is important to me, either for curiosity or because it is material to some conclusion I care about, I look it up / ask for citation, etc.