theyarecomingforyou wrote on Oct 1, 2015, 18:50:
We're talking about claims made by anonymous individuals. It's quite easy for misinformation to spread. For instance, most employees aren't going to be given access to the company's financial records - that tends to be hearsay.
Let me be clear, I'm not dismissing the allegations. I'm just understandably sceptical.
Someone didn't read the article.
9 sources. 9. 7 of them identified themselves and weren't anonymous. 2 were and weren't quoted, they were used to help verify the other 7. Reading the story and you keep seeing statements like "all sources were consistent" and "we frequently heard from all sources".
So let me ask you this.
If you're not seeing the writing on the wall, what is your level of proof before you admit something fucked up is happening? Because there's a mountain of evidence that something is rotten in the state of Denmark, but you keep invoking skepticism. And that's okay, so long as you have a threshold of proof that has to be overcome. Otherwise you're not a skeptic, you're just a zealot.
For example. If CIG doesn't get a big cash boost and manages to exist 9 months from now without massive layoffs, I'll probably admit I was wrong. If they deliver Squadron 42 or significant evidence that it's nearly done in... say... a year? I'll definitely say I was wrong. I have a threshold where I'll amend my statements.