Are you of the opinion that the rest of us are too stupid to follow simple declarative sentences?
Is it all made up?
Namecalling is the last refuge of the truly clueless megalomaniacs.
Useless as the author might seem in your eyes, I learned more from that article about how the scam was made possible than all the name calling doofuses can neutralize.
As for the poster's reaction to this article, I'll let you be a judge. The cursory glance at it reveals immediately, however, that, regardless of the content of individual paragraphs, they are completely disconnected from each other (in terms of logic). It's a rant where the author lists all the grievances he has about anything related (as he perceives it) to Wall Street. The other striking feature, of course, is that he repeats leftist cliche.
I'll let you be a judge, but the foregoing should, but apparently does not, raise question about the writer's credibility.
Many on this forum, however, are not sufficiently critical, apparently because the anti-Wall Street sentiments reverberate with them.
No, some of the words are used correctly. It was hard for me to find a thought, however, that would start with a factually correct premise and arrive at a conclusion in a logical manner. I don't remember a single instance of that, sorry.
"Namecalling is the last refuge of the truly clueless megalomaniacs."
I completely agree with you, as stated. You seem to be implying more than that: the one who does so must be a megalomaniac. That part is false.
One may also state conclusions (name-calling) after stating the reasons dozens and dozens of times elsewhere, for instance.