'Now get this; I contend the fact that these two gurus of their respective flocks, started the thread and posted most of the posts on the thread gives some endorsement and validation of the company and it's technology.'
Oh I get it! How could we have missed it?
The premise of your argument is that these two gentlemen, somewhat esteemed for their knowledge in their respective fields, "endorsed" the technology, and by association the company, by bringing forth, and engaging in, a public discourse on the subject of the company's technology.
By extension, then, any public discussion of a subject between two (or more) people who share a certain expertise in the field being discussed, is an endorsement of the subject.
Obviously, then AIDS is being "endorsed", when a conference of doctors discusses it.
On radio, a group of clergy discusses sin, and thereby "endorses" wrongdoing.
A group of scientists gets together on the internet, and "endorses" pollution by discussing greenhouse emissions.
You ignore the possibility that the posters you attack were motivated to discuss the potential and the possibilities of a little-known company's technology, by simple interest, and nothing else. You ignore the evidence that in so doing, they continued a practice they had engaged in, for years.
Your premise is flawed. Your logic is faulty. You have no evidence to support your submission, except an overcooked analysis of the number of posts by each, on a subject that seems to have interested few. The strong body of evidence formed by longstanding and consistent previous practice, you ignore.
And were you a lawyer who attempted to bring this ill-considered hogwash to trial, you would indeed, be "half-assed". Counsellor, you have no case. Dismissed. |
