Re: Can you spot the clue?
"Before I answer, let me ask you whether "plausibility" is a standard you're willing to apply to AuntieSocial's arguments."
Fair question as always from you.
Any given single article may be "plausible" on its own. Taken as a whole, I don't think they are at all, because each is totally dependant upon an obfuscated or misrepresented lynch pin and relies on the assumption (USUALLY correct) that the reader will not dig deeper. After allowing some intial criticisms, it's apparently easier for ASM to just bar people from replying (me) and discouraging others to even try by very publicly "outing" my email id. (Don't worry for me, it's a throw-away. I expected it.)
To set out to intentionally (and with very obvious malice) try and destroy a man's credibility and career requires MUCH more than "plausibility" in my book. If it didn't, I wouldn't be here right now.
Realize NONE of this EVER debates Weiss' work, which is totally fair game to criticize. It's all just a well orchistrated ad hominem by someone who describes himself as "especially good at "strategic" messaging, which is code for embarass the opposition in the press". ASM is essentially just a very elaborate logical fallacy.
IMO, the new $64,000 question is it a corporate sanctioned activity? If so, what risk does this put shareholders in? I've pretty much come to a conclusion for myself.