I don't see why your baseless conjecture about nervous breakdowns and substance abuse should be any more credible than the cause implied by this post. I have seen a lot of people coming up with such alternative explanations, which actually go a long way to avoid a more plausible (if less comfortable) conclusion.
Also, I have seen multiple references to some paranoia that Mr. Hastings supposedly had. When I read his email, I see anything but paranoia. He seems very matter-of-fact and even jokes about the investigation. Also, here is a man who had already broken a massive story about a powerful figure and who was in the business of going after such massive stories. Sudden bouts of paranoia wouldn't seem consistent or productive in his line of work.
I take exception to that word because it's dismissive. It seeks to paint him as somehow irrational or the cause of his own demise, while simultaneously waiving the notion that there could be outside involvement. It asserts that of course every element of the government is always good in every situation, such that any concerns to the contrary must be paranoia. It is a very insidious use of language.
It's quite remarkable how thoroughly you have tried to refute my simple statement of a possible alternate scenario, while simultaneously propping up the alternative (and just as baseless) theory, loading your post with a delightful collection of emotive words.
We're all mostly adults here. We can rationally discuss that there are many possible scenarios. This is not and will hopefully never be a site where people who try to create a reality in their own perception dominate.
You're talking in circles, and in your first paragraph literally just repeated back to me what I'd written about your post. In any case, we have already had many people attack theories of government involvement based on a lack of evidence. Yet, many posit theories with less evidence (such as yours). So, I merely asked why such theories should be any more credible. That is why it doesn't work for you to merely repeat my words back to me.
In your second paragraph you opine about us all being adults, capable of rational discussion, yet you made no substantive contribution to that discussion. You just kind of made the observation that this is a great place to do it. If one were so inclined. I guess. Then, you go on to lament about some imaginary future date wherein people use the site to create their own realities or something.
What is all this meta-talk? If you want the site to be about discussion of various ideas, then discuss yours! Make your counter-point and defend your position vs. whining about someone disagreeing with you. Do you really not see the irony in passing on opportunities to make your point, and instead using them to express your worry that someday you won't be able to make your point?
Good grief. As it is, your entire post was a NOOP.
To be more to the point, your post is noisy nonsense that attacks the mere existence of alternative theories, and those who might posit them. I was trying to politely say that your breed of Reddit-style "shoot-the-messenger" post is not usually well received here, thankfully.
Again, you make no sense. No one attacked the "mere existence" of alternative theories. I challenged you to explain why yours is any more credible than others, something which you apparently cannot do, hence your little tirade about what HN is all about.
And, I plainly I didn't "shoot the mesenger". I specifically questioned your message. In fact, you acknowledged this in your previous reply when you "found it remarkable how thouroughly I have tried to refute your simple statement of an alternative scenario". See that? You acknowledged that I was attacking the statement (i.e. message).
And again with the meta-talk. You have still said nothing in defense of your actual post (calling mine "noisy nonsense" doesn't qualify). Instead, you appear to just be saying things that you hope will get you upvotes.
Contrary to what you have declared HN to be in your quest for karma as its self-appointed keeper, I believe what makes it special is the many bright people here who speak a common language, and who sometimes disagree (even vehemently). But, they are able to construct logic-based, thoughtful arguments, which challenge their adversaries and make them think. I have learned much in this way, as I am sure have others.
Thanks for the advice. Will try to be more concise.
Meantime, work on defending your position and constructing logical responses. I should warn you however, that constructing arguments may require that your word volume increases.
Also, I have seen multiple references to some paranoia that Mr. Hastings supposedly had. When I read his email, I see anything but paranoia. He seems very matter-of-fact and even jokes about the investigation. Also, here is a man who had already broken a massive story about a powerful figure and who was in the business of going after such massive stories. Sudden bouts of paranoia wouldn't seem consistent or productive in his line of work.
I take exception to that word because it's dismissive. It seeks to paint him as somehow irrational or the cause of his own demise, while simultaneously waiving the notion that there could be outside involvement. It asserts that of course every element of the government is always good in every situation, such that any concerns to the contrary must be paranoia. It is a very insidious use of language.
And beyond that, it just makes no sense.