Nowhere did I say that I hadn't read what was written. However, the format was cause for suspicion.
As I mention above, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section.
So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.
Nowhere did I say that I didn't consider the content omitted, but by going in with a bias against the article, you're setting yourself up to already have an opinion without knowing the material.
As I mention above, my objection is that it paints an overly simplistic picture of the "myth" by reducing it to a one-line straw man which can then easily be dismantled in the "fact" section.
So while it's true that it is important to evaluate the content presented, it is also critical to consider the content not included either by commission or omission.