Taking the stance of remaining wary seems completely appropriate to me.
As you point out, there is plenty of fog here, as there is in a LOT of areas that we naturally have an interest in.
Regarding Chansley, a cautious level of observation is warranted, imo. I haven't reached any solid conclusions, but my suspicion is that this guy is not DS at the least. Whether he is 'a misguided patriot' or had some positive or planned role in the events, I don't know.
It seems that sometimes, our pedes want to rush to conclusions because they offer some level of comfort, as in "This guy is obviously a fed" or "This guy is clearly a good guy" etc. Such a sense of discomfort with not knowing is, I would say, one of any anons greatest vulnerability.
We should be fine with being able to look at what we know, what we don't know, and having suspicions or ideas but withholding evaluations and resisting the urge to jump or move to conclusions before things are clear.
In that sense, I see nothing wrong and a lot right with remaining wary. You or I may come down on different sides of the fence regarding our thoughts on whether he's a plus or a minus, or who is likely behind him, but that's immaterial if we maintain an appropriate level of awareness (which personally, I think far too often many pedes fail to do when engaging with such unknowns).
Taking the stance of remaining wary seems completely appropriate to me.
As you point out, there is plenty of fog here, as there is in a LOT of areas that we naturally have an interest in.
Regarding Chansley, a cautious level of observation is warranted, imo. I haven't reached any solid conclusions, but my suspicion is that this guy is not DS at the least. Whether he is 'a misguided patriot' or had some positive or planned role in the events, I don't know.
It seems that sometimes, our pedes want to rush to conclusions because they offer some level of comfort, as in "This guy is obviously a fed" or "This guy is clearly a good guy" etc. Such a sense of discomfort with not knowing is, I would say, one of any anons greatest vulnerability.
We should be fine with being able to look at what we know, what we don't know, and having suspicions or ideas but withholding evaluations and resisting the urge to jump or move to conclusions before things are clear.
In that sense, I see nothing wrong and a lot right with remaining wary. You or I may come down on different sides of the fence regarding our thoughts on whether he's a plus or a minus, or who is likely behind him, but that's immaterial if we maintain an appropriate level of awareness (which personally, I think far too often many pedes fail to do when engaging with such unknowns).