Applying the scientific method to everything does not have a "side" of the fence. I know that's new to most of you, but it's sound epistimology. Conclusions don't come first in my world. Facts are not made to fit the conclusion. The conclusion comes from facts. Which, btw, do not speak for themselves. They must be interpreted in the light of theory.
In my world, it's more important to be right than not wrong. Again, the cognitive dissonance you face with this approach is great indeed. That's why you find the truth repugnant. :)
Now, you keep making a claim that you offered Zac $10M and he walked away. Well, actually, you said it was a friend of yours that did and you were present, and now you are saying that you did. These claims are just that -- Claims. Hearsay. If you want a critical thinker to believe you, and not somebody on your side of the fence, then that burden of proof falls on you. You need to supply supporting evidence. A consistent story woudl be helpful if you want to at least have a plausible story. Details matter. So far, you have even supplied sufficient information to be gleaned from a STORY that doesn't open itself up to falsification.
People with no sides of a fence in their minds -- ie, filtered through the logs in their eyes -- are left to wonder several possibilities from the STORY they just heard. One, perhaps Zac didn't nead the money; or two, perhaps the terms were bad; or three, Zac didn't want to take advantage of someone giving away their lotto winnnigs; or four, etc. etc.... The list goes on. INSUFFICIENT information. No supporting evidence. Hearsay. And, lastly, you can't even keep your stories straight.
Is it asking too much to at least get a consistent story? Critical minds prefer consistent stories.
