I'm not sure you appreciate just how insufferably arrogant a sentence like "I can safely say I was the smartest person in the room" sounds. Especially when you follow it up by calling yourself "a smart detailed person" while dismissing others around you as "normies". If you truly were smart, you'd perhaps appreciate just how difficult it is to even begin to define that word, and also just how much your comment reads like an incoherent word vomit. Who is Susie Q? What petitions? What are you on about?
then why didn't you say what you just said to everybody talking about SBF?
You didn't say it because your reasoning is motivated, you're inventing something to say to and about me to indicate your scorn.
But that is why I wrote in the first place, to say that everybody is heaping scorn on SBF and ignoring what it's like to be asked those questions in a trial environment.
So finally we've arrived at a place where you have the beginning of a chance of understanding what I was saying all along. Sorry it took this long, but I was saying "why is everybody tripping over themselves to register their scorn, when the facts of the matter are more interesting. Facts should motivate juries, not scorn."
I don't live in the world of scorn, and your scorn does not make me feel bad. It makes me think less of you, that you can't engage in a discussion with trying to self congratulate and seek group approval for your distaste for people who are different.
and before you say "I didn't say that", I can't write a million replies to a million people (I actually can, but people don't like to read it) so I'm replying at this point in a multi-message thread to the overall tone of the crowd that you are agreeing with.
Also known as a 'loaded question' (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question>) - I really don't think that questions like "Did Alameda have an essentially unbounded line of credit?" are all that loaded. SBF simply did not want to answer the questions.
I was disabusing him of the notion that he might be the smartest person in that room. Smartness is across various axes, for one, but mainly, the presumptuousness and the sheer confidence of the assumption rubbed me the wrong way, not so much the content of the argument.
Agreed. I think that some people - SBF included - could take to heart the idea that sometimes they are not the smartest person in the room. Or even that being 'smart' is not the always the most important thing to be at every point in time.
Nor did I want to give such an answer, I just wanted to understand the question so I could give the short answer that was accurate.
I explained how giving the short obvious answer screwed me. You have to grasp the story I told in totality if you want to render judgements based on how smart you know everybody is. Every sentence I included was for a reason, it fits together like a puzzle. There were many other facts I left out because they were unnecessary. But for some reason, you simply look for slim reasons to attack. smh
