I tend to use my own experience as source material whenever possible first. Then if they argue back, they have to argue against my experience, which is harder for most people to do.

Well, you’ll notice as you deal with me, I tend to use my own experience as source material whenever possible first. Then if they argue back, they have to argue against my experience, which is harder for most people to do.

Now a NatGeo link could be argued against by a conspiracy theorist of some kind. For example, the company was bought out by a news media giant. Lots of people crying in their soup about a buyout of a non-profit organization (NatGeo) that was making WAY TOO MUCH PROFIT to sustainably be legitimately considered non-profit anymore and a buyer with the know-how and experience to run the financial part of the NatGeo empire is a logical move, the man’s personal thoughts on things aside.

Now a conspiracy theorist might consider that article you posted a result of the long relationship NatGeo had with the man through the years, and that denial is REALLY part of an agenda to promote… whatever people say he’s promoting.

So, that’s why I use personal experience, although I believe the NatGeo link is excellent and I believe it. They have a solid reputation.

I’m a little unorthodox tongue emoticon

[responsivevoice_button voice="US English Male"]

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


− two = 2

Leave a Reply