If a practice is flawed and fruitless, isn't that a reason to avoid it? That was the idea, anyway. What I said about it has to do with its structure and content, not with what I "dislike" about it.

Are you saying that global scepticism is wrong or indefensible? Or just that it is presupposition of the street Epistemologist's, and so that the problem is done kind of bias.

The second is closer to what I'm saying. SE makes a whole bunch of loaded assumptions about knowledge and method which are baked into the structure of the conversation but which the conversation is designed to avoid discussing. Hence what I say in the last two paragraphs.

In my experience, when laypeople use special pleading

What does this have to do with special pleading?

In what ways do they diverge, and why?

Hi folks, I'm the organiser. Very eager to get this reading group started. Any lurking Vancouverites who haven't become involved in the core community should feel very free to show up.