Replies

So all you’re presenting me with is a he-said, she-said scenario, in which the only deciding factor is your lack of trust in Farah’s motives, based on evidence you are unwilling to provide. Hmmmm. OK, but I’ve got to tell you, a judge is going to need something better than that to work with. Just sayin

Sheesh...

In case you hadn't noticed, Free Republic is not a court of law. And, once again, happening all around you, are opinions. Mine of Farah is extremely low.

Got any reason to believe he can be trusted? Or is that just your opinion?

Well, FR may not be a court of law, but I’m not in the habit of rendering judgment without at least a fig leave of factual basis for doing so, and you have not provided even so much as that, IMHO.

For example, you want me, by default, to reject the credibility of anyone who has not given me a reason to trust them. If that is your premise, why should I trust you? I know far less about you than I do about Farah, correct? And very often I have seen Farah put forward articles that are corroborated by other fact sources and are completely in harmony with my own interpretation of those facts. Whereas you have “Con-Man” built into your name. What am I to make of that fact?

Yet I am willing to extend to you a basic level of trust, until you prove otherwise, as I hope you do me. I don’t know how these anonymous conversation boards could work any other way. So that’s my position on Farah. I’m treating him like I would treat you, and like I would want you to treat me. I have considerable exposure to his views and his treatment of facts and simply don’t see a pattern of deception or venal motives. If they are there, I am willing to see them. Show me. No one is Jesus to me but Jesus. But if you want me to share in your distrust of Farah, simply on your say so, why should I do that, when I know so little about you and so much more about him?