If you're here to tell me energy drink body spray is a bad idea, I've heard it before, from a bank and some doctors.

This is what it sounds like to me, and Sim Ant is the game I had in mind opening this post. It was a good one.

Do you have any preferred sources for learning more about Umberto eco's 14 points of fascism?

I have a pair originally purchased for running but they've turned out to be useful in numerous situations where I wanted to listen to something without losing awareness of my surroundings.

There’s nothing wrong with the article.

I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there's a big difference between:

'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death

and

'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death

I know I'm being pedantic, that it's just clickbait, and that's the reality of today's media; but I've spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.

claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.

You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, "I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who agrees with my point of view than I am a "close family friend" who disagrees with my point of view" or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, "he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself" I'd still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn't consider her any more credible just because she's agreeing with me.

I feel the same about the response given that I'm agreeing with everyone's sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.

I'm curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom's friend's daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?

I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, "it's obvious" or "I know" to back it up

That strikes me as a "Sorry, not sorry" kind of response.

This is an evangelical organization so that's probably all you're going to get. They have an entire culture built around perceived persecution so, even when they're forced to apologize for something, they're going to think they're the victims of the scenario.

source: I used to be one of them

edit: I guess I shouldn't make such sweeping generalizations. my opinion is based off my couple of decades as an evangelical and another couple watching my family continue with it