When Anonymous Comments Become Evidence for a Conclusion Already Assumed
Glenn E. Chatfield recently published a post titled “Angry Mormon Commenters”, presenting several anonymous comments that he says illustrate what he regularly encounters from people attempting to defend the Latter-day Saint faith. Some of the comments he reproduces are crude, vulgar, insulting, and entirely inappropriate. There is no reason for Latter-day Saints, or anyone else, to defend calling another person obscene names, questioning someone’s masculinity, accusing someone of Satan worship, or substituting profanity for substantive argument. If someone claiming to defend The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually wrote those comments, that person represented the faith poorly and distracted from whatever legitimate argument might otherwise have been made.
That needs to be acknowledged at the beginning because intellectual honesty requires applying the same standard to everyone involved. Calling Glenn a “dumbass,” a liar, a coward, or a Satan worshiper does nothing to determine whether Joseph Smith was a prophet, whether a particular alleged prophecy was conditional, whether Glenn has accurately represented Latter-day Saint doctrine, or whether one of his historical arguments survives scrutiny. Insults are not evidence, profanity is not exegesis, and personal abuse is not apologetics. Glenn therefore has a legitimate grievance when anonymous commenters abandon substantive engagement and descend into vulgarity.
The problem is that Glenn does not stop with the comparatively modest conclusion that certain anonymous commenters behaved badly. Instead, the behavior of unidentified individuals becomes evidence for a much broader narrative about “Mormons,” their supposed inability to answer his arguments, and the manner in which Latter-day Saints allegedly respond when confronted with uncomfortable facts. That is where the reasoning begins to unravel. More importantly, Glenn’s own published comment history demonstrates that several rhetorical behaviors he condemns in others—name-calling, assumptions about motives, sweeping religious judgments, dismissive labeling, and personal attacks—are hardly absent from his own interactions.
Steelmanning Glenn’s Position Before Critiquing It
Before challenging Glenn’s reasoning, his position deserves to be stated in the strongest reasonable form. Glenn operates an explicitly counter-Latter-day Saint apologetics blog. He clearly does not intend the site to function as an unrestricted public forum where every theological position receives equal space, and he believes Mormonism teaches errors serious enough to warrant public criticism. Because the blog is his platform, he also believes that he has the right to determine which comments, arguments, and external links appear beneath his articles.
On that narrow issue, Glenn is correct. A private blogger is under no obligation to publish every comment received. Moderating profanity, spam, harassment, repetitive trolling, threatening behavior, or irrelevant material is a normal part of managing an online publication. Nobody acquires a right to someone else’s platform merely because they disagree with the author.
Glenn also has a legitimate criticism when anonymous commenters substitute personal abuse for argument. Whether Joseph Smith produced false prophecies is not answered by calling Glenn a coward. Whether Jonah 3 should be interpreted as a conditional prophetic warning is not settled by calling someone stupid. Whether a Latter-day Saint historical claim has been accurately represented cannot be established by attacking Glenn personally. The proper response is to examine the source material, analyze the argument, and identify specifically where the reasoning succeeds or fails.
His argument concerning Jonah also deserves more consideration than some of his commenters appear willing to give it. The extended discussion occurs beneath his article “Joseph Smith In Charge of Heaven?!?!?”. Jonah 3:4 records the proclamation that Nineveh would be overthrown in forty days, while Jonah 3:10 records God relenting after the people repented. Jonah 4:2 then shows that Jonah anticipated precisely this possibility because he understood God to be gracious, merciful, and willing to relent from announced judgment.
Jeremiah 18:7–10 likewise establishes a broader biblical principle in which announced judgments against nations may be withdrawn when those nations turn from evil. There is therefore a serious exegetical argument that prophetic judgments can possess covenantal conditions even when those conditions are not restated explicitly within every individual proclamation. A simplistic argument that “Nineveh was not destroyed within forty days, therefore Jonah was a false prophet” does not adequately account for the broader narrative and prophetic theology of repentance and judgment.
Acknowledging that point, however, does not automatically vindicate Glenn’s allegations concerning Joseph Smith. Neither does it establish that every critic raising Jonah is merely attempting to avoid dealing with Joseph Smith. The individual prophetic claims still have to be examined individually.
Anonymous Does Not Mean Mormon
The first major evidentiary problem is remarkably straightforward: How does Glenn know these anonymous commenters are actually Latter-day Saints? The designation “Anonymous” tells us nothing definite about religious affiliation. An anonymous commenter could be an active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a former member, a non-LDS Christian who dislikes Glenn’s methodology, an atheist trolling religious websites, someone sympathetic toward Latter-day Saint apologetics without belonging to the Church, or simply a person who enjoys provoking religious arguments online.
These are not implausible possibilities invented merely to escape an uncomfortable conclusion. They are precisely the possibilities anonymity leaves unresolved. Yet Glenn has repeatedly moved from disagreement with his position to assumptions about a commenter’s religious identity.
An excellent example appears in the comment discussion beneath “God Is NOT, Nor Ever Was, a Man”. An anonymous commenter challenged Glenn’s interpretation of Hosea 11:9 and even supplied material from John Gill’s commentary explaining the distinction between God and human beings within the context of divine mercy, covenant faithfulness, and human mutability. Rather than establishing the commenter’s religious identity independently, Glenn eventually concluded that the individual was “most likely a Mormon.”
That is not verification. It is inference.
The same pattern appears in “Some Quick Thoughts About LDS Racism”. When an anonymous commenter challenged Glenn’s historical treatment of racism and asked whether nineteenth-century American Christianity should also be placed within its broader racial and cultural context, Glenn eventually concluded that the person’s defense of an LDS argument indicated that they were not Christian. Later he questioned how someone claiming to be a Christian pastor could devote attention to defending Latter-day Saint historical context.
The reasoning becomes circular when religious identity is inferred from disagreement and then that inferred religious identity is subsequently used to discount the disagreement. The structure becomes something like this: you defend a Mormon argument, therefore you must be Mormon; because you are Mormon, your defense is simply Mormon apologetics and can therefore be dismissed. The conclusion is doing work that should have been performed by actual evidence.
Glenn may sincerely believe these individuals are Latter-day Saints, and in some cases he may even be correct. But believing something about an anonymous writer is not the same thing as establishing that writer’s identity.
From Anonymous Trolls to “Mormons”: The Hasty Generalization
Even if we granted, solely for the sake of argument, that every offensive commenter quoted in “Angry Mormon Commenters” really was an active Latter-day Saint, another logical problem would remain. At most, those examples would demonstrate that those particular Latter-day Saints behaved badly. They would not establish that Latter-day Saints generally respond this way, nor would they demonstrate that abusive rhetoric is somehow characteristic of Mormon apologetics.
That is the classic problem of hasty generalization. A tiny, self-selected collection of anonymous internet comments cannot reasonably stand as a representative sample of millions of members belonging to a worldwide religious community. This becomes especially obvious if we reverse the argument.
Suppose I collected several hostile comments written by self-identified evangelical Christians and published an article titled “Angry Evangelical Commenters: Why Evangelicals Cannot Answer Mormonism.” Glenn would have every reason to object. He could rightly point out that those individuals do not represent biblical Christianity, that angry Christians can behave badly without thereby disproving Christianity, and that theological propositions must be evaluated independently of the behavior of obnoxious commenters.
The same standard has to operate in both directions. Bad behavior from a Latter-day Saint no more falsifies the Restoration than bad behavior from an evangelical Christian falsifies the New Testament. If we are discussing truth claims, then we have to examine the truth claims themselves.
The Authentication Problem Glenn Never Resolves
There is another problem with presenting anonymous comments as evidence of specifically Mormon behavior. If the identities of the writers are genuinely unknown, then the evidence being presented cannot independently establish the religious affiliation being attributed to those writers.
Several possibilities therefore remain open. The commenters may be active Latter-day Saints. Some may be Church members while others are not. Some may be former members or people sympathetic toward Latter-day Saint apologetics. Some may simply be trolls. In any anonymous online environment, there is also the general possibility of people using multiple identities, pretending to represent groups they do not actually belong to, or engaging in sock-puppet behavior.
That does not justify accusing Glenn himself of writing the anonymous comments.
There is presently insufficient evidence to establish such an allegation, and suspicion should never be promoted into fact simply because it would create a useful rhetorical point. Responsible apologetics requires a higher evidentiary standard than that. If we are criticizing Glenn for assumptions, we should not answer him by constructing an assumption of our own.
Ironically, however, the same evidentiary principle works in the opposite direction. If we cannot responsibly say, “Glenn wrote these anonymous comments,” without evidence identifying him as their author, Glenn likewise cannot responsibly move from “Anonymous wrote this” to “This is what Mormons do” without evidence demonstrating that the authors are actually Latter-day Saints.
The most defensible conclusion is therefore much simpler: we do not know who wrote them. Some may indeed be Latter-day Saints. Some may not be. Until their identities can be established, those comments cannot reasonably carry the evidentiary weight Glenn appears to place upon them.
“They Cannot Answer My Arguments”—Except He Often Will Not Publish Their Answers
Glenn repeatedly maintains that his critics resort to insults because they cannot answer his substantive arguments. Yet his own statements concerning comment moderation significantly complicate that conclusion.
One of the clearest examples occurs in “Speaking Against Polygamy Brings Damnation??”. An anonymous commenter offered a comparatively measured criticism about the tone of the blog, the absence of published comment guidelines, and the perception that dissenting discussion was being controlled. Glenn responded by explaining that his guideline was essentially that comments promoting or defending Mormonism would not be published because his blog was not intended as a forum for defending what he considered indefensible.
That is Glenn’s prerogative. It is his blog, and he does not have to provide Latter-day Saint apologists with an unrestricted platform.
The logical difficulty arises when the resulting comment section is then treated as evidence that Latter-day Saints cannot substantively respond to his arguments. If substantive LDS defenses are intentionally excluded while vulgar or embarrassing responses are selectively published as examples of the behavior Glenn receives, then readers are not necessarily seeing a representative sample of the attempted engagement. They are seeing a sample selected by the moderator.
The same issue appears in “Some Quick Thoughts About LDS Racism”, where Glenn eventually states that he will no longer publish comments from a particular anonymous critic because the person is attempting to defend what Glenn considers the indefensible LDS position. Later he reiterates that he does not provide his blogs as platforms for defending groups he categorizes as cults.
Again, he has every right to establish that editorial policy.
But there is an unavoidable logical consequence: one cannot simultaneously maintain “I will not publish substantive defenses of Mormonism here” and then use the resulting absence of published Mormon defenses as evidence that “Mormons cannot answer my arguments.” The moderation policy itself partially determines what evidence readers are permitted to see.
The Curious Definition of Ad Hominem
Glenn frequently accuses critics of using ad hominem attacks, and sometimes he is unquestionably correct. Calling someone stupid, cowardly, satanic, dishonest, or otherwise attacking their character instead of addressing their argument can certainly become abusive ad hominem rhetoric.
The difficulty arises when Glenn appears less willing to recognize comparable rhetoric within his own responses.
Consider the discussion under “Did They Really Say That?!?”. An anonymous commenter initially raised specific objections concerning strawman reasoning, presentism, false equivalence, and historical context. Glenn answered partly by directing the commenter toward the larger body of his blog and describing the LDS faith as a “demonic cult.”
The conversation then became an argument about what constitutes an ad hominem. Another anonymous commenter carefully explained that calling an entire religious tradition “demonic” does not itself demonstrate that the propositions being advanced by that religious tradition are false. Glenn responded that “truth is not an ad hominem” and continued to characterize Mormonism as demonic.
Precision matters here. Saying “Mormonism is false” is not automatically an ad hominem. Saying a theological proposition is heretical is also not necessarily an ad hominem. Religious traditions make mutually exclusive truth claims all the time, and Christians have every right to argue that another religious system is doctrinally incorrect.
The problem arises when condemnation of the person or group begins doing the work that should have been performed by an argument. If someone raises a historical objection and the answer becomes essentially, “You belong to a demonic cult,” the description of the group has not actually answered the historical objection. At that point we begin approaching poisoning the well or the genetic fallacy, where the source of an argument becomes the reason for dismissing the argument.
The truth or falsity of a proposition does not depend upon whether it was presented by a Mormon, Baptist, Catholic, Calvinist, atheist, Muslim, or anyone else. Arguments stand or fall according to evidence and reasoning.
The Rhetorical Standard Becomes Even More Complicated
The exchange beneath “God Is NOT, Nor Ever Was, a Man” provides an especially useful comparison because Glenn repeatedly complains about anonymous insults while also employing strongly personal language himself. During the discussion he describes Mormonism as a “demonic religion,” characterizes Joseph Smith as a false prophet, tells one critic that they demonstrate ignorance, accuses another of cowardice for anonymity, and at one point declares that he has “grown big ones” and stands as a “real man.”
Elsewhere in the same thread, an anonymous reader simply asks who everyone is discussing because they would like to examine what the other person has said. Glenn refuses to identify or direct the reader toward that material because the individual is Mormon and therefore, in Glenn’s judgment, a member of a non-Christian cult teaching false doctrine. When the anonymous reader objects that Glenn is being rude and condescending, Glenn responds that he has not been rude or condescending.
The purpose of pointing this out is not to engage in a tu quoque fallacy. Glenn could behave terribly and Mormonism could still be false. A Latter-day Saint could behave wonderfully and Joseph Smith could still have been a false prophet. Personal behavior does not determine the truth of a theological proposition.
The relevance is narrower. Once Glenn makes tone, anger, insults, Christian behavior, and rhetorical conduct part of his case against anonymous Latter-day Saint commenters, his own published rhetorical conduct becomes relevant to whether he is applying that standard consistently.
The “No True Christian” Problem
Another recurring pattern appears whenever Christians disagree with Glenn’s treatment of Mormonism. At times their disagreement itself begins functioning as evidence that their Christianity should be questioned.
This becomes particularly visible in “Some Quick Thoughts About LDS Racism”. An anonymous participant raises the historical fact that nineteenth-century Christianity existed within a broader racial culture and argues that Christian ministers also appealed to biblical interpretations involving Ham, Cain, slavery, and racial hierarchy. The commenter is not necessarily arguing that LDS racial teachings were therefore acceptable. The argument being advanced is about historical consistency and whether similar contextual standards should be applied across religious traditions.
Glenn eventually responds by questioning how someone claiming to be a Christian pastor could spend so much effort defending an LDS position. He even qualifies the possibility by suggesting that perhaps the individual is a “LEFTIST” pastor. In later comments he distinguishes “REAL Christians” from those who defend Latter-day Saint arguments.
That reasoning risks becoming a form of the No True Scotsman fallacy. The structure is familiar: real Christians believe a particular conclusion; someone identifying as Christian disputes that conclusion; therefore that person cannot be a real Christian.
That does not mean Christian doctrinal boundaries are meaningless. Christianity unquestionably possesses historical theological claims, creeds, confessions, scriptural interpretations, and debates concerning orthodoxy. But disagreement with Glenn Chatfield’s particular historical or apologetic conclusion cannot itself become the decisive test of someone’s Christian identity.
If a Christian scholar believes Glenn has misrepresented a historical quotation, then the historical objection should be answered historically. If a pastor believes nineteenth-century cultural context has been omitted, then the contextual argument should be addressed. Questioning the Christianity of the person making the argument does not resolve the argument itself.
“You Hate the Facts” Is Mind-Reading, Not Argument
Another recurring rhetorical move involves assigning motives to critics. They supposedly “hate the facts,” cannot tolerate “the truth,” want an audience to preach Mormonism, or attack Glenn because he has successfully exposed their religion.
Perhaps some critics genuinely do respond defensively. Religious belief is deeply personal, and no tradition is immune from believers who react emotionally when cherished assumptions are challenged. Nevertheless, motives cannot simply be assumed whenever someone disputes an argument.
A person may disagree because they genuinely believe evidence has been misrepresented. They may believe historical context has been omitted, a quotation has been selectively excerpted, an important opposing source has been ignored, or the interpretive standard being applied to Latter-day Saint history differs from the standard used when evaluating broader Christianity. They might simply think Glenn is mistaken.
None of those possibilities demonstrates that the critic is correct. They do demonstrate, however, that disagreement cannot automatically be converted into evidence that someone “hates the truth.”
Once an argument becomes psychologically self-sealing, meaningful correction becomes nearly impossible. Agreement becomes evidence that the argument is true, while disagreement becomes evidence that the opponent hates truth. Under that construction, there is almost nothing an interlocutor can say that would ever count against the original position.
“My Entire Blog Proves It” Is Not a Substitute for Answering the Objection
Several exchanges also reveal another recurring response: critics are invited to read Glenn’s entire blog because, he maintains, the blog collectively proves Mormonism false. His blog may indeed contain numerous arguments worthy of examination, and some may be considerably stronger than others. But the existence of a large body of material does not resolve a specific objection raised against one particular proposition.
For example, if someone argues in “God Is NOT, Nor Ever Was, a Man” that Hosea 11:9 is being interpreted without sufficient regard for its immediate context, then the contextual objection needs to be addressed. Saying that the entire blog demonstrates Mormonism to be false does not answer the immediate exegetical question.
Likewise, if someone challenges Glenn’s historical treatment of race in “Some Quick Thoughts About LDS Racism”, then the historical question must be answered with historical evidence. If someone disputes whether a statement attributed to Joseph Smith qualifies as prophecy, then the original source, wording, date, conditions, intended audience, and claimed fulfillment should be examined.
A cumulative case can certainly be powerful, but a cumulative case is only as reliable as the arguments from which it is constructed. Each proposition still deserves individual scrutiny.
Jonah Does Not Automatically Rescue Joseph Smith—or Condemn Him
This brings us back to the discussion beneath “Joseph Smith In Charge of Heaven?!?!?”. Glenn states that Joseph Smith made at least sixty-two false prophecies and challenges Latter-day Saints to demonstrate otherwise. Anonymous commenters respond by raising Jonah and Nineveh.
As already acknowledged, Glenn has a serious exegetical argument concerning Jonah. The narrative itself supports the concept of an announced judgment that is withheld because of repentance, and Jeremiah 18 provides broader prophetic theology explaining how divine judgments against nations can operate conditionally.
But Jonah cannot function as a shortcut around examining Joseph Smith, and simply invoking “62 false prophecies” cannot function as a shortcut around examining the individual allegations either.
If Glenn presents sixty-two alleged false prophecies, then each one deserves examination. What is the primary source? Was the statement actually presented as prophecy? Was it recorded contemporaneously? Was a deadline given? Were conditions expressed or reasonably implied? Has the wording been accurately transmitted? Did something occur that believers understand as fulfillment? How do Latter-day Saint historians understand it? How do non-LDS historians interpret it?
Those questions matter because counting allegations is not the same thing as establishing them. If several examples are unquestionably strong, that matters. If some are ambiguous, conditional, incorrectly categorized, or disputed regarding fulfillment, that matters too.
The evidence must be examined prophecy by prophecy.
The Central Inconsistency: Condemning a Tone One Frequently Uses
Glenn’s newest article becomes especially difficult to evaluate because he makes rhetorical behavior part of his criticism while his own published comments include similarly confrontational language. Across “God Is NOT, Nor Ever Was, a Man”, “Did They Really Say That?!?”, “Some Quick Thoughts About LDS Racism”, and “Joseph Smith In Charge of Heaven?!?!?”, readers encounter descriptions of Mormonism as demonic, Joseph Smith as a pawn or servant of Satan, critics as cowards, opponents as ignorant, people as worshipers of a man, and individuals whose Christianity is questioned because they defend LDS arguments.
None of that excuses the anonymous commenter who writes obscene abuse.
The issue is consistency.
If Glenn wishes to argue that insulting rhetoric demonstrates that Latter-day Saint commenters have no substantive argument, then the same standard must apply when insulting rhetoric comes from Glenn. If calling someone a coward demonstrates the weakness of an anonymous critic’s argument, calling an anonymous person a coward does not become logically stronger because Glenn says it. If questioning someone’s Christianity is irrelevant to whether their historical argument is correct, it remains irrelevant regardless of which side does it.
A consistent apologetic method cannot operate under two rhetorical standards.
One Standard for Everyone
A better approach requires everyone involved to live under the same rules. If a Latter-day Saint calls Glenn stupid instead of answering his argument, reject the insult and demand evidence. If Glenn calls a Latter-day Saint ignorant instead of answering an argument, apply exactly the same standard.
If an anonymous commenter accuses Glenn of lying, that accusation should require evidence. If Glenn accuses a critic of lying, that accusation should require evidence as well. If someone speculates about Glenn’s motives, reject the speculation. If Glenn says a critic simply “hates the truth,” recognize that as motive attribution rather than demonstration.
The same methodological standard should govern historical interpretation. If an LDS leader is quoted out of context, restore the context. If a Latter-day Saint apologist quotes an evangelical scholar out of context, restore that context too. If Joseph Smith makes a historical or prophetic claim, investigate it. If Glenn Chatfield makes a historical claim, investigate that too.
No protected class of argument should exist.
Truth does not require a double standard.
A Word to Latter-day Saint Defenders
There is also an important message here for those who defend the Restoration. If you are one of the people who wrote the obscene comments Glenn published, then you did not help the Latter-day Saint position. You distracted from it. You handed Glenn an opportunity to publish an article about angry Mormon commenters rather than keeping the conversation focused on scripture, history, prophetic claims, and theology.
Latter-day Saint apologetics does not require profanity, personal abuse, insults concerning someone’s masculinity, or accusations of satanic allegiance. First Peter 3:15 calls believers to be prepared to give a reason for the hope within them while doing so with meekness and reverence. Whatever one believes about Mormon history, that remains sound Christian counsel.
If Glenn misrepresents a source, document the source. If historical context is missing, restore it. If the exegesis is poor, demonstrate why. If an argument contains a logical inconsistency, identify the inconsistency carefully. Let primary sources, thoughtful scholarship, sound reasoning, and Christian conduct do the work that vulgarity never can.
A Word to Glenn
Glenn frequently challenges critics to demonstrate where he is wrong, and that is a legitimate request. Anyone making public theological or historical claims should be prepared to have those claims tested. Genuine openness to correction, however, requires more than issuing challenges. It requires allowing for the possibility that an opponent might occasionally raise a legitimate objection.
That means distinguishing disagreement from dishonesty and criticism from persecution. It means avoiding the assumption that everyone who defends a Latter-day Saint position must secretly be Mormon. It means recognizing that repeatedly describing another religious tradition as demonic, its founder as satanic, critics as cowards, and dissenters as non-Christians inevitably contributes to the rhetorical climate surrounding these exchanges.
It also means applying to oneself the same standard demanded from everyone else.
If name-calling demonstrates that someone has abandoned substantive argument, then let us remove the name-calling from both sides. Remove speculation about motives. Remove speculation about anonymous identities. Remove “you hate the truth” as though it answers historical evidence. Remove “cult” when it is being used as a substitute for answering the proposition under consideration.
Then place the sources on the table.
Let us examine Joseph Smith. Let us examine the alleged prophecies. Let us examine the Book of Mormon, plural marriage, nineteenth-century racial teachings, biblical anthropology, the Great Apostasy, the nature of God, and the Trinity. Let each proposition live or die according to the strength of its evidence rather than the intensity with which someone declares themselves correct.
That would be a considerably more interesting conversation.
A Better Standard Than “Angry Mormon Commenters”
The real issue is not whether some anonymous people behaved terribly. They plainly did. The real issue is whether those anonymous people have been demonstrated to represent Latter-day Saints generally. They have not.
The issue is whether anonymity establishes the religious identity of the authors. It does not. The issue is whether Glenn’s own published rhetoric consistently meets the behavioral standard he applies to his critics. His own comment sections give readers ample material from which to make that assessment themselves.
The answer is also not to retaliate by claiming Glenn secretly manufactured the anonymous comments. Unless evidence emerges demonstrating that, we should not make the accusation. Doing so would reproduce the very evidentiary problem being criticized. Responsible apologetics should be willing to say “we do not know” when the available evidence does not establish an answer.
Abusive comments should therefore be condemned wherever they appear. Anonymous trolls should not be treated as representatives of an entire religious community. Religious identity should not be inferred merely because someone disagrees with an argument. Accusations of ad hominem reasoning should not become a standard applied exclusively to one’s opponents.
Above all, confidence must never be confused with demonstration. Saying one has conclusively proven Mormonism false is not the same thing as proving each proposition used to construct that conclusion. Saying an opponent hates the truth does not demonstrate that their objection has been answered. Saying an anonymous commenter is Mormon does not establish that the commenter actually is Mormon.
Paul’s instruction in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 remains an appropriate standard: “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” That principle applies to Joseph Smith. It applies to Latter-day Saint apologists. It applies to evangelical counter-cult ministries. It applies to Glenn E. Chatfield.
Truth should have nothing to fear from careful examination, fair representation, meaningful dialogue, and genuine cross-examination.
No comments:
Post a Comment