This article often referred negatively about what was obviously...

This article often referred negatively about what was obviously forager & seemed biased & sanctimonious, it was big on opinion thin on facts. For instance it highlights a few times the implied likelihood of a class action, which is based on an obscure reference to “free insurance”(?) It made a few good points like cancelling policies will become easier, but overall read as a biased opinion piece with great hindsight. You might think that’s confirmation bias on my behalf, but I really want facts & have been asking negative posters for informed grounds of a CA or quantify unexpected costs or for a precedence supporting the St Andrews deal being finished or possible discounted TC value.... & if anybody really knows they’re not telling. I don’t want to lose more money in blind hope but neither do I want to sell without facts & watch a recovery feeling stupid I got swept up in fear. His opinion might prove correct but to me it didn’t come across as having any special insight. I know you didn’t write the article & you don’t need to defend it, but you did post it knowing it might generate discussion.