I called out Cedars for posting BS 10 years ago.
I mention you in the cedars thread - you were so kind, factual and to the point in trying to make lloyd aware that he was very wrong, but he didn’t listen and continued down his abusive rabbit hole behaviour. You called it 100% correctly.
If it’s not to much trouble I would love to know your thoughts to my question:
Lloyd had no qualifications, no experience, hadn’t been out of the borg long at that point, clearly made provable errors yet people continued to believe him and thanking him for the “valuable information” - even over the qualified/fact driven proof.
It is easy for someone who has no idea about the subject he is lecturing Talking about, sure I understand that, but why did they listen to his “brand of facts” over that of others?
Thank you for calling out Cedars
💗