You must be REALLY stupid. According to your warped thinking, the Assange stand-off for nearly 7 years, then his final arrest must have been staged… yeah, right. What a fk’n idiot you must be.

“Overall–Rich Hall seems well-spoken and spends quite a bit of time on esoteric subjects (pyramids, etc.)”

Doc Scott liked pyramids too.

Read who your Mossange serves and what is used for … and thought… or go to the cinema for a Superhero 2019
https://journal-neo.org/2019/04/24/iran-is-no-one-s-colony/

I’m afraid what you say makes no sense to me, Robbobbobin. I’m always happy to take advice but if you wish to give advice you need to point out exactly why I should take it. You’d need to specify how my Occam’s Razor exercise doesn’t qualify as such and displays “bumbling around” such that I’d benefit from doing a degree in engineering. Similarly, you’d need to specify where my argument shows I haven’t researched properly. I grant you I do not do thorough research – I readily admit to that, however, I still think that at a superficial level of research (often based on others’ detailed research) my arguments still work. I’m more of an analyst than a researcher.

What I can see is that it doesn’t matter how many years people have gone to school they do not know how to reason properly. One thing they really should teach at school but generally don’t I think (I don’t recall being taught them) are the logical fallacies. That would be of massive benefit when you’re arguing with people. You can point out how their argument fails because they’re engaging in ad hominen, cherrypicking, argument ad speculum, red herrings, etc. I can identify an ad hominem you’ve used on me and your argument above falls into the “argument by assertion” logical fallacy (an informal fallacy).

My advice to you – backed by what I’ve just cited – is become familiar with logical fallacies and try to avoid them in your argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

I tend to believe that Michael Hastings is also an agent – the amount of truth or quasi-truth they’re prepared to push out is pretty phenomenal. Was a speechwriter for Condi? It’s simply a case of they know anyone paying attention already suspects what is confirmed by them tends to be true anyway. The “partner killed by insurgents” and the book afterwards is something we’ve heard before and in the article you link to there’s “crumble-zone” instead of “crumple-zone” – the everpresent typo which in this case does have an air of deliberateness somehow as it’s kind of humorous – admittedly they occur naturally I know. You simply do not know who’s who – you really don’t.

From Wikipedia
The day before the crash, Hastings indicated that he believed he was being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In an email to colleagues, which was copied to and released by Hastings’ friend, Army Staff Sergeant Joe Biggs,[70] Hastings said that he was “onto a big story”, that he needed to “go off the radar”, and that the FBI might interview them.[71][72] WikiLeaks announced that Hastings had also contacted Jennifer Robinson, one of its lawyers, a few hours prior to the crash,[73] and the LA Weekly reported that he was preparing new reports on the CIA at the time of his death.[74] His widow Elise Jordan said his final story was a profile of CIA Director John O. Brennan.[75]

I think I’ve heard the “contacted people just prior to death about “a big story”” story before too. Really? He contacted Jennifer Robinson just a few hours before his death. What did he say? Did he say “I’ve got a big story”? Why wouldn’t he just wait till he had said story?

But I’d have to do more research to confirm whether Michael is an agent or was actually killed and that isn’t going to happen.

‘Robbobbobin, Can you please elucidate how […] how I have “bumbled around”?’

Right here, right then. For starters.

No main course and no seconds on the starters instead.

You have my presumptuous and maybe wrong headed advice; you don’t want it. Your choice, your life (or neurosis or program or AI, as the case may be). Whichever way, OK by me. Over and out.

And just to add. Regardless of however wrong I might have Occam’s Razor why doesn’t someone submit their exercise according to their superior understanding of it? Why is there simply no exercise submitted at all according to anyone’s definition of Occam’s Razor? Why don’t you submit according to your definition? It would kill two birds with one stone, no? You’d put a stop to my annoying comments AND get $5,000. Perhaps you think I’d renege on my offer and not give you the $5,000 that your exercise clearly merits – but wouldn’t it be worth it to have the satisfaction of having me renege and show my unworthiness in addition to my stupidity? Isn’t there an incentive here, Robbobbobin, to submit according to your superior understanding of Occam’s Razor and at the same time force me to “take my subversion elsewhere”?

Robbobbobin, Can you please elucidate how I have not used Occam’s Razor correctly and how I have “bumbled around”? Always willing to learn, as I say. I’m not sure where I saw the comment, it may have been on OffG but someone said a teacher admonished in margins of their essays, “Specify, don’t characterise”. What you’re doing is characterising without specifying what I’m doing incorrectly. Without specifics everything you say is meaningless assertion.

Do you believe in the saw “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”? I have put up a $5,000 challenge for people to submit a 10-point Occam’s Razor exercise relating to 5 different hypotheses and the rules state the challenger can choose their own judge from a specified profession – I also state the rules are open to discussion. We both know for a fact that there are many people who disagree with my favoured hypotheses and yet no one, including you, has submitted their exercise or even a single point to support their favoured hypothesis. Not a single point. I call that “proof of the pudding”. What do you call it?
https://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/5000-challenge.html