Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9707118" data-attributes="member: 6790260">No idea! But I've seen things that certainly look a lot like it.Yes, precisely! That's precisely what infuriates me about it. Like...you've just made the argument I've been making for...uh...~1700 posts now?An excellent question.My experience of discussing this with a number of people--as amply demonstrated by this thread--is that there are a number of what one might call "grandfathered" type-II facts that are simply accepted as if they were type-III facts without any explanation as to why, other than "well of course everyone knows THAT" (even when...they don't. Like genuinely they actually don't because these facts can be changed...and frequently are!)Any other type-II facts are rejected as unacceptable because they don't conform to type-I facts. Type-III facts are often a subject of debate, with many (many...many...many) pixels spilled over whether any given fact is actually type-III and thus totally okay, or actually (non-grandfathered) type-II and thus totally unacceptable.</blockquote>