I'll see if I can make a stab at the point he was getting at
Many posts on this board arbitrarily saying, for example, Appleton has links with Seppala and SISU that result in suggestions of him being in their pay to do dubious deads, and for some reason these have gained currency despite there being no evidence whatsoever and, more to the point, one of the losing bidders being at pains to say he was happy with the professionalism of the administrator, and the legality of the process.
This and other statements made take on the mantel of fact by virtue of being made and repeated on this board, it becomes rather self referential and a circular web of evidence where the same mantras are repeated.
The veracity of the evidence is never challenged however. Just this gets a ferocious defence because it chimes with the dominant POV, while other sweeping statements are allowed to pass because they don't.
Now (I think
) that's what he was getting at here, that it's easy to throw out casual accusations with no foundation, and cast doubt on processes. It does, admittedly, seem to have backfired a little
and it would be unfortunate from the POV of the blog writer that he's the guinea pig for this little experiment.