No more free lunches

by admin on February 27, 2010

in General

For some this will be a shock, for others this will be an outrage, for still others this will be a ‘good for you dude’ move.

As of the very near future, AccMan is transitioning to a paid for subscription model. Now…before you all go nuts and start shouting and swearing at me please let me explain how this will work.

First the good news. 100%+ of what you see here remains exactly the same. Free to see, free to consume. Going forward, about 20% will be on a paid for model. Call it the Redmonk model if you like. The difference being that I will be more transparent than anyone else I know out there on the Interwebs. With th e possible exception of Om Malik.

Why am I doing this?

I’ll be celebrating 40 years in and around the tech industry this June. That’s a long time. I’d like to think I’ve always been open minded about change but adopted a sensible approach to what tech delivers to the business. That means while I am among the over-the-bleeding-edge tech fashionista, I’m not a blind follower of fashion. Some things really are plain stupid while others are stunningly innovative. I’ve seen, experienced and enjoyed the value tech brings. I’ve also seen and participated in some of the most egregious disasters. That’s taught me a lesson: see, hear, enjoy, consume…but think. That doesn’t always make me popular. But then I’m not doing this to be popular but because my true passion is value delivery.

I sense that despite this being the worst recession in living memory, and with the real prospect of a double dip, the time is right for me to up the stakes in value delivery. But it cannot be free forever. We all have to eat. We all have to provide. I am no different and am certainly not one of those people who has a secret stash that gives me the luxury of not having to earn something along the way.

AccMan has evolved nicely in the last 4+ years. I have a wonderful, faithful and generous following. That means unlike some sites, I rarely have to moderate comments for some lunatic with an agenda. It also means I get, on average 2.5 comments for every one of the 3,100+ posts I have written.

It also means I have been able to develop a content driven but monetized model that is pretty much unique. Send me a feed, add a clickable logo and you become a sponsor in a totally democratic model that is entirely dependent on how fresh the sponsors make their content. It means that the more value sponsors add, the more likely I will see and riff. But as I have always said – no free lunches. You can be a sponsor but if you mess up, then I have an absolute right to communicate that. I’d hope that encourages sponsors to remember who pays the bills – customers. The upside is when sponsors deliver, I back them to the hilt. So far that arrangement has worked well – I believe.

The time has come to ratchet the game. Let me explain what’s been happening recently so you get clues to my reasoning.

Investor analysts from Wall Street, company investors, potential buyers, vendors and others have increasingly been asking me to add colour to what you see on these pages. They rightly assume that what I say in public is not the full story. I’ve never refused a call or offered an opinion that I didn’t believe, at the time, was correct. I’ve never charged for any of that. But…and it is a big but…that is consuming more and more of my time. I don’t mind and I hope that adds value. Is it fair that I should provide what amounts to a free advisory to one organization and not another? No. But that’s what’s been happening.

For example, in the last two weeks, five vendors have asked me to look at forward plans and services under non disclosure. That’s a privilege  and honour. But should I reciprocate by offering free opinion? What I might think may never be acted upon but if it is then it has an indirect impact on buyers. Should buyers be kept in the dark simply because I’ve been asked to view something under non-disclosure and then comment? All for free? Should I provide updates to potential buyers via an email opinion that is only available to that correspondent and again for free? Even though it is flattering, it is not right. It is not fair. It is not in the spirit of what I have been trying to communicate these last few years.

But…again…privilege implies responsibility. It demands that anyone prepared to listen be given equal access. it also demands an increasing amount of my time researching, validating and sense checking what I say. I do all those things so that readers can be confident that what they see here is based upon fact based conviction. It’s a costly exercise. And it is a proven model. When I had my up and down with Kashflow, the back channel emails and instant messages told me one thing: regardless of public posturing, we trust you. That is immensely gratifying.

So – how is this going to work?

It’s really simple. As I’ve said 80% remains free. The remainder can be consumed on a ‘pay per drink’ or ‘Full Monty’ subscription basis. The difference will be obvious. You might see a teaser and then decide: ‘I’ll pay for the rest.’ or you might say: ‘I want it all.’ Or you might say ‘no thanks.’ Prices will be banded based on the depth and value of the content that is delivered. In that sense I am delivering on my public statements about value consumption.  I will make it as easy as possible to figure out what you want to do.

Other services will be added which I have been providing but hopefully in a more standardized and consistent way. For example, if you want me to offer a view on whether XYZ software is right for you, then I’ll do that based on your criteria and the depth to which you’d like me to go. If I can’t help you I’ll likely know someone who can. If you are a vendor looking to get help in understanding what users really think then I will help you there. Again, based on a simple, credits based system. What I won’t do is break implicit NDA’s or provide explicit competitive advantage comparisons. Remember, my prime concern is buyers. I will make as much of this transparent as possible within the constraints of confidential agreements. If I am uncomfortable with your request, I will tell you and politely decline.

I confidently expect that some people will be very upset. That’s fine. Contact me and we can discuss. But at the end of the day if you want me to remain honest, want me to stay as a buy side advocate, want me to continue being practical and realistic rather than being a sell side shill which I doubt I could ever carry off – then this is how it is going to be.

Will it work? I don’t know. I am taking all the risk by upping the stakes. This is going to cost me money in establishing the best way to deliver on what I am proposing. It is up to readers, audience, customers…however you want to regard yourselves…as the final arbiters. It is an acknowledgment and adjustment to the real world which is changing at break neck speed.

Thanks for being patient enough to get this far. If you now hate me – I’m sorry…go get a life. If you approve…many thanks. That alone is priceless.

Comments on this entry are closed.

joecardillo February 27, 2010 at 3:03 pm

The basic idea is sound — you add value and provide feedback to both your readers and vendors. It's clear you put a lot of time, energy, and probably money, into what you do. For people to castigate you for wanting to receive something back is absurd.

I think a smarter, more experienced reader is going to be willing to pay for content subscription if they've established a relationship and interact with you regularly. I'm guessing the “Pay Per Drink” model is for the less invested reader? Have you discussed what pricing would be like with any of your regular readers?

I will say this — it seems clear that content is less valuable than it once was. I don't drink the free market koolaid or consider myself an expert, but clearly supply and demand has lot to do with that (meaning demand is finally catching up with the sheer amount of content online). Subscription based services like Netflix are making pretty good money, but nothing like video stores or getting consumers to buy at $25 a pop.

Recent Nielsen study seems to indicate people are willing to pay, but not very much… http://bit.ly/axmfe8 (I don't put much stock into these things, what people say they're willing to pay is usually significantly different than what they end up paying, but it's an interesting question to ask).

This is the first time I've read your blog, but looking around and if I click into it from other places a couple more times I would probably consider a basic subscription for $2-$3 per month…of course I'm not an invested/regular reader, are you thinking levels of subscription (gold, silver, platinum aggh I know it sounds like a software co.) i.e. you mentioned “Prices will be banded based on the depth and value of the content that is delivered”

Esteban Kolsky February 27, 2010 at 3:18 pm

Dennis,

I agree with the logic and completely understand it. I even support. I think that it is a very bold move in this market, and I am eager to see how you help the rest of us with this pioneering action.

I don't believe in the Gartner and Forrester model of pay-to-access everything. That is no longer functional considering that their analysis has gotten weaker (IMO) over the last few years and you are expected to pay more for it. All my time at Gartner I was told that the written research is the gateway to inquiries and consulting. That model is dated and won't go much longer — as long as what you are proposing begins to take off.

I started my company on the premise of a 90-10 split for free/paid content but have not yet found the market for the paid side. I shall be waiting to see how it works for you (with my gratitude) and proceed accordingly.

I commend you on the move, I support you, and I am eager to see where it goes.

I will also help you “pimp” this post.

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:26 pm

Sorry Sig – you are correct. I've amended

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:27 pm

Thanks David – I"m still trying to figure out what is best for sponsors

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:28 pm

Expect to see an announcement in the coming weeks about a buyer service. I'm working on a partnership there already.

Chris Selland February 27, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Good luck with this Den – only way we will figure out if this works is by doing it. I know how focused you are on quality and integrity, so I'll be both rooting for you and doing what I can to support.

Ben Kepes February 27, 2010 at 9:34 pm

So if this move is one to provide a complete “buy side” perspective as you vehemently claim, does this mean you’ll be forgoing vendor sponsorships in order to be completely vendor-neutral?

Secondly does this mean that the SaaSapps Wiki becomes a paid-for service? I hope not – information, as they say, wants to be free….

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 9:59 pm

@ben – you never miss an opportunity to try take food off people’s tables. Good for you but you really don’t ‘get’ the sponsor model as I am using it do you? People are not so stupid as to click on something that’s a blatant pitch. Or if they are then that’s their problem.

Xero has figured this out and it’s why they’re content is valuable. I’m giving them distribution.

SaaSAppsWiki will remain free forever – at least under my watch. There’s another plan in place so watch this space.

Ben Kepes February 27, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Not wanting to take food off anyone’s table (well except mine, seeing as I’m on this crazy diet thing but that’s another story). What I’m wondering about (and I’m wondering simply because this is really interesting) is how you manage to balance the pressures of being paid by vendors, while still maintaining a “buy side” perspective. If you’re referring to the sponsored links on your site, many of them are blatant pitches, they are, after all, direct feeds from vendors blogs and as such can only be expected to be pitches.

Glad to hear that the Wiki will remain free – as discussed with you previously, I fear that the only way to make a directory like that really work is by vesting it in the commons, but understand that has its issues also.

I’ll watch this space with interest

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Assumptions can be a very dangerous thing. I don’t have the issue you’re referring to. If I did then no-one would believe what I say, this blog would be a digital waste of my time and people would simply go elsewhere. The clues are all there. You just need to figure it out for yourself. “…can only be expected to be pitches” < that's your perception but it isn't what I advise sponsors to do.

Ben Kepes February 27, 2010 at 11:39 pm

I doubt vendors change the content of their blogs based specifically on your advice. If they don’t then your sponsored post section is a direct feed from their own blogs and as such is entirely vendor focussed… how can it be anything else?

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 12:34 am

So if this move is one to provide a complete "buy side" perspective as you vehemently claim, does this mean you'll be forgoing vendor sponsorships in order to be completely vendor-neutral? Secondly does this mean that the SaaSapps Wiki becomes a paid-for service? I hope not – information, as they say, wants to be free….

dahowlett February 28, 2010 at 12:59 am

@ben – you never miss an opportunity to try take food off people's tables. Good for you but you really don't 'get' the sponsor model as I am using it do you? People are not so stupid as to click on something that's a blatant pitch. Or if they are then that's their problem. Xero has figured this out and it's why they're content is valuable. I'm giving them distribution.SaaSAppsWiki will remain free forever – at least under my watch. There's another plan in place so watch this space.

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 1:44 am

Not wanting to take food off anyone's table (well except mine, seeing as I'm on this crazy diet thing but that's another story). What I'm wondering about (and I'm wondering simply because this is really interesting) is how you manage to balance the pressures of being paid by vendors, while still maintaining a "buy side" perspective. If you're referring to the sponsored links on your site, many of them are blatant pitches, they are, after all, direct feeds from vendors blogs and as such can only be expected to be pitches.Glad to hear that the Wiki will remain free – as discussed with you previously, I fear that the only way to make a directory like that really work is by vesting it in the commons, but understand that has its issues also.I'll watch this space with interest

dahowlett February 28, 2010 at 2:23 am

Assumptions can be a very dangerous thing. I don't have the issue you're referring to. If I did then no-one would believe what I say, this blog would be a digital waste of my time and people would simply go elsewhere. The clues are all there. You just need to figure it out for yourself. "…can only be expected to be pitches" < that's your perception but it isn't what I advise sponsors to do.

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 2:39 am

I doubt vendors change the content of their blogs based specifically on your advice. If they don't then your sponsored post section is a direct feed from their own blogs and as such is entirely vendor focussed… how can it be anything else?

dahowlett February 28, 2010 at 2:52 am

Another assumption based on something you don't know conflated into an illogical argument. Give it up Ben, your losing this one.

krishnan February 28, 2010 at 1:07 am

It is your blog and you are free to do anything. For all I care, you can also have porn in here too. As long as vendors want to pay for content inside the paywall, it shouldn’t matter either. Essentially what you do in your house is not anyone’s business. So, I have no comments on this move to paywall. All I care to say is good luck with your plans.

Jon Reed February 28, 2010 at 1:07 am

It’s about time! Content creators have not been given their full due in today’s Internet economy. Here’s to those bold enough to create models that reward the value created. No one loses.

krishnan February 28, 2010 at 4:07 am

It is your blog and you are free to do anything. For all I care, you can also have porn in here too. As long as vendors want to pay for content inside the paywall, it shouldn't matter either. Essentially what you do in your house is not anyone's business. So, I have no comments on this move to paywall. All I care to say is good luck with your plans.

Jon Reed February 28, 2010 at 4:07 am

It's about time! Content creators have not been given their full due in today's Internet economy. Here's to those bold enough to create models that reward the value created. No one loses.

Ben Kepes February 27, 2010 at 9:34 pm

So if this move is one to provide a complete “buy side” perspective as you vehemently claim, does this mean you'll be forgoing vendor sponsorships in order to be completely vendor-neutral?

Secondly does this mean that the SaaSapps Wiki becomes a paid-for service? I hope not – information, as they say, wants to be free….

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 9:59 pm

@ben – you never miss an opportunity to try take food off people's tables. Good for you but you really don't 'get' the sponsor model as I am using it do you? People are not so stupid as to click on something that's a blatant pitch. Or if they are then that's their problem.

Xero has figured this out and it's why they're content is valuable. I'm giving them distribution.

SaaSAppsWiki will remain free forever – at least under my watch. There's another plan in place so watch this space.

Ben Kepes February 27, 2010 at 10:44 pm

Not wanting to take food off anyone's table (well except mine, seeing as I'm on this crazy diet thing but that's another story). What I'm wondering about (and I'm wondering simply because this is really interesting) is how you manage to balance the pressures of being paid by vendors, while still maintaining a “buy side” perspective. If you're referring to the sponsored links on your site, many of them are blatant pitches, they are, after all, direct feeds from vendors blogs and as such can only be expected to be pitches.

Glad to hear that the Wiki will remain free – as discussed with you previously, I fear that the only way to make a directory like that really work is by vesting it in the commons, but understand that has its issues also.

I'll watch this space with interest

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:23 pm

Assumptions can be a very dangerous thing. I don't have the issue you're referring to. If I did then no-one would believe what I say, this blog would be a digital waste of my time and people would simply go elsewhere. The clues are all there. You just need to figure it out for yourself. “…can only be expected to be pitches” < that's your perception but it isn't what I advise sponsors to do.

Ben Kepes February 27, 2010 at 11:39 pm

I doubt vendors change the content of their blogs based specifically on your advice. If they don't then your sponsored post section is a direct feed from their own blogs and as such is entirely vendor focussed… how can it be anything else?

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 6:25 am

So you're saying that you don't publish vendor's feeds directly to your sponsored content widget? That wouldn't seem to be the case looking at the content that you have in there. How exactly is it illogical to contend that given that:1) vendors pay you to show their blog feeds on your page2) vendor's blogs are primarily marketing toolsThe sponsored content widget is primarily a place for vendor pitches. I fail to see how that is an "assumption based on something I don't know conflated into an illogical argument"

krishnan February 28, 2010 at 1:07 am

It is your blog and you are free to do anything. For all I care, you can also have porn in here too. As long as vendors want to pay for content inside the paywall, it shouldn't matter either. Essentially what you do in your house is not anyone's business. So, I have no comments on this move to paywall. All I care to say is good luck with your plans.

Jon Reed February 28, 2010 at 1:07 am

It's about time! Content creators have not been given their full due in today's Internet economy. Here's to those bold enough to create models that reward the value created. No one loses.

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

An interesting take on paywalls, excluding Google and the counter-productiveness of the same. http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/newspaper-paywalls.html

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

An interesting take on paywalls, excluding Google and the counter-productiveness of the same. http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/newspaper-paywalls.html

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 7:18 pm

An interesting take on paywalls, excluding Google and the counter-productiveness of the same. http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/newspaper-payw…..

Richard_Murphy February 28, 2010 at 8:13 pm

FrancineYour model works too – and is mine, in many ways. I have no direct sponsors for what I do, and yet I'd have almost no income without my blog these daysWhen someone buys a day from me they know I'll be using part of it to blogI'm not sure the lobbyist can charge I'm sure Dennis canI think if I wrote for a practice audience and aimed at adding value for them I would be I guess I could try the opposite though – a sort of being bought into silence :-) )Richard

Anonymous February 28, 2010 at 5:59 pm

You can’t make a living if you never say “no”. Good for you, Dennis.

bftcpa February 28, 2010 at 8:59 pm

You can't make a living if you never say "no". Good for you, Dennis.

Simon Griffiths February 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Hope it goes very well

Simon Griffiths February 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Hope it goes very well

Simon Griffiths February 28, 2010 at 9:04 pm

Hope it goes very well

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 4:18 pm

An interesting take on paywalls, excluding Google and the counter-productiveness of the same. http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/02/newspaper-payw…

Tom Foremski February 28, 2010 at 10:38 pm

Sounds good. I don’t see a problem with it. It’s two different products. And if this works, then it might work for others too.

TomForemski March 1, 2010 at 1:38 am

Sounds good. I don't see a problem with it. It's two different products. And if this works, then it might work for others too.

bftcpa February 28, 2010 at 5:59 pm

You can't make a living if you never say “no”. Good for you, Dennis.

Simon Griffiths February 28, 2010 at 6:04 pm

Hope it goes very well

Martijn Linssen March 1, 2010 at 12:04 am

Apparently you’re getting valued more by the day, I know I value your opinion, so heck why not?
You’ll probably have a tough time figuring out how to fit the nuts & bolts together though, and I think it’ll be tough on you too appearing a wee underopinionated. Anyway, best of luck, still with you!

martijnlinssen March 1, 2010 at 3:04 am

Apparently you're getting valued more by the day, I know I value your opinion, so heck why not?You'll probably have a tough time figuring out how to fit the nuts & bolts together though, and I think it'll be tough on you too appearing a wee underopinionated. Anyway, best of luck, still with you!

Tom Foremski February 28, 2010 at 10:38 pm

Sounds good. I don't see a problem with it. It's two different products. And if this works, then it might work for others too.

martijnlinssen March 1, 2010 at 12:04 am

Apparently you're getting valued more by the day, I know I value your opinion, so heck why not?
You'll probably have a tough time figuring out how to fit the nuts & bolts together though, and I think it'll be tough on you too appearing a wee underopinionated. Anyway, best of luck, still with you!

tojosan March 1, 2010 at 11:41 pm

Getting paid isn’t a crime!

I say jump in and go. You’ve been providing value in return for nothing. Those you’re providing it to have treated it like finding a clear drink of water on unowned property. It’s time they paid the piper.

Heck, I’m doing my first for renumeration blog post in the near future. No $$ but free books in exchange for a review. FTC disclosure required. Do I feel bad about it? Heck no, I already do book reviews with no payments, free books, or even love from the publishers or authors.

Cheers,
Todd ‘@tojosan’ Jordan

tojosan March 2, 2010 at 2:41 am

Getting paid isn't a crime!I say jump in and go. You've been providing value in return for nothing. Those you're providing it to have treated it like finding a clear drink of water on unowned property. It's time they paid the piper.Heck, I'm doing my first for renumeration blog post in the near future. No $$ but free books in exchange for a review. FTC disclosure required. Do I feel bad about it? Heck no, I already do book reviews with no payments, free books, or even love from the publishers or authors.Cheers,Todd '@tojosan' Jordan

tojosan March 1, 2010 at 11:41 pm

Getting paid isn't a crime!

I say jump in and go. You've been providing value in return for nothing. Those you're providing it to have treated it like finding a clear drink of water on unowned property. It's time they paid the piper.

Heck, I'm doing my first for renumeration blog post in the near future. No $$ but free books in exchange for a review. FTC disclosure required. Do I feel bad about it? Heck no, I already do book reviews with no payments, free books, or even love from the publishers or authors.

Cheers,
Todd '@tojosan' Jordan

Suw March 2, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Good for you, Dennis.

I too have had to draw the line between free and paid. I used to get asked out to coffee a lot for “a little chat”. I started to realise that those little chats were something I should be charging for as people were basically getting my advice for free – advice I know some were acting on and getting value from. So I said, No more! and began to charge.

This sounds to me like basically the same thing. When a company asks you for your thoughts, they are basically assuming that they will get some value out of it. There’s a line in the ground to be drawn, and the only tough part is where you draw it.

Keep me appraised of how you set this up, though, I’ll be interested to see how you do it. I do hope it works though.

Suw March 2, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Good for you, Dennis.

I too have had to draw the line between free and paid. I used to get asked out to coffee a lot for “a little chat”. I started to realise that those little chats were something I should be charging for as people were basically getting my advice for free – advice I know some were acting on and getting value from. So I said, No more! and began to charge.

This sounds to me like basically the same thing. When a company asks you for your thoughts, they are basically assuming that they will get some value out of it. There’s a line in the ground to be drawn, and the only tough part is where you draw it.

Keep me appraised of how you set this up, though, I’ll be interested to see how you do it. I do hope it works though.

Suw March 2, 2010 at 11:12 pm

Good for you, Dennis. I too have had to draw the line between free and paid. I used to get asked out to coffee a lot for "a little chat". I started to realise that those little chats were something I should be charging for as people were basically getting my advice for free – advice I know some were acting on and getting value from. So I said, No more! and began to charge. This sounds to me like basically the same thing. When a company asks you for your thoughts, they are basically assuming that they will get some value out of it. There's a line in the ground to be drawn, and the only tough part is where you draw it. Keep me appraised of how you set this up, though, I'll be interested to see how you do it. I do hope it works though.

Geoff March 2, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Did I miss it? What’s the cost?

Plus, I would say there’s got to be a whack of consulting work out there with your name on it. Great insights Dennis.

Best,

Geoff March 3, 2010 at 2:03 am

Did I miss it? What's the cost?Plus, I would say there's got to be a whack of consulting work out there with your name on it. Great insights Dennis.Best,

Suw March 2, 2010 at 8:12 pm

Good for you, Dennis.

I too have had to draw the line between free and paid. I used to get asked out to coffee a lot for “a little chat”. I started to realise that those little chats were something I should be charging for as people were basically getting my advice for free – advice I know some were acting on and getting value from. So I said, No more! and began to charge.

This sounds to me like basically the same thing. When a company asks you for your thoughts, they are basically assuming that they will get some value out of it. There's a line in the ground to be drawn, and the only tough part is where you draw it.

Keep me appraised of how you set this up, though, I'll be interested to see how you do it. I do hope it works though.

Geoff March 2, 2010 at 11:03 pm

Did I miss it? What's the cost?

Plus, I would say there's got to be a whack of consulting work out there with your name on it. Great insights Dennis.

Best,

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:52 pm

Another assumption based on something you don’t know conflated into an illogical argument. Give it up Ben, your losing this one.

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 3:25 am

So you’re saying that you don’t publish vendor’s feeds directly to your sponsored content widget? That wouldn’t seem to be the case looking at the content that you have in there.

How exactly is it illogical to contend that given that:
1) vendors pay you to show their blog feeds on your page
2) vendor’s blogs are primarily marketing tools
The sponsored content widget is primarily a place for vendor pitches. I fail to see how that is an “assumption based on something I don’t know conflated into an illogical argument”

dahowlett February 27, 2010 at 11:52 pm

Another assumption based on something you don't know conflated into an illogical argument. Give it up Ben, your losing this one.

Ben Kepes February 28, 2010 at 3:25 am

So you're saying that you don't publish vendor's feeds directly to your sponsored content widget? That wouldn't seem to be the case looking at the content that you have in there.

How exactly is it illogical to contend that given that:
1) vendors pay you to show their blog feeds on your page
2) vendor's blogs are primarily marketing tools
The sponsored content widget is primarily a place for vendor pitches. I fail to see how that is an “assumption based on something I don't know conflated into an illogical argument”

Previous post:

Next post: