A note to those interested...
I spent a lot of years in academic settings, and consequently I have a deep aversion to pedantic donkey work. People frequently tell me that I should source things more — even when they fundamentally agree with my posts — and I can see their point. But it isn't going to happen. I will source things (as a rule) under two conditions:
- When I need to refer to an academic theory or author that people might not be familiar with
- When I need to explain a particularly controversial point
Otherwise, I'm simply going to rely on my insight, acumen, and skills to produce reasoned analysis of questions I decide to answer. Things I see as common knowledge, common sense, or easily accessible via Google or Bing will be presented as given. If I miss connecting with people who prefer a more concrete empirical style... So be it, and my apologies in advance.
Let me know if I make any specific factual errors; I will correct them. If you wish to dispute some particular point, please do so analytically, and I will respond in kind. I will do due diligence when I must, and I do love to get into philosophical debates, but I will shrug off mere complaints that lack any effective or substantive argumentation.
I know, I know... But we all have our crosses to bear.