| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) 21:36 - Nov 23 with 10465 views | ElderGrizzly |
After the wreath laying ‘accidental’ editing, now this
|  | | |  |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:40 - Nov 25 with 2415 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:19 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
So you believe that spectacle with the broken windows to be genuinely unplanned? [Post edited 25 Nov 2019 16:21]
|
“Elite manufactured” is invoking a nebulous bogey man.
“Decidedly dodgy” is another way of saying unquestionably dishonest.
Unless there is real evidence of either of those terms being appropriate to a subject, then seems to me someone using that sort of language, would meet your description of someone that should not be listened to. |  | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:41 - Nov 25 with 2413 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:23 - Nov 25 by StokieBlue |
If you were referring to that point then no problem. I do think it probably didn't break in the testing but who knows, I don't see any benefit from planning for it to happen.
I was actually referring to the second part that CIL cited as fake news (the car in space). If you weren't referring to that then it's my mistake and ignore me.
SB |
Well i think we should all be more concerned with the media and their coverage of the spectacle as CIL rightly pointed out.
Re the second upvote Stokie, i am afraid you have made a mistake, upvoted for -
"It's just the sort of open, honest, display you want from a company supposedly at the cutting edge of science." |  | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:43 - Nov 25 with 2406 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:40 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
“Elite manufactured” is invoking a nebulous bogey man.
“Decidedly dodgy” is another way of saying unquestionably dishonest.
Unless there is real evidence of either of those terms being appropriate to a subject, then seems to me someone using that sort of language, would meet your description of someone that should not be listened to. |
“Elite manufactured”
Did i say that? | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:47 - Nov 25 with 2396 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:43 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
“Elite manufactured”
Did i say that? |
No, I didn’t say you did.
It was an example of what someone may say to create a “bogeyman”.
And therefore someone not to be listened to, based on your description. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:03 - Nov 25 with 2375 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 16:47 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
No, I didn’t say you did.
It was an example of what someone may say to create a “bogeyman”.
And therefore someone not to be listened to, based on your description. |
Browder pushed an angle that was easily disproved and the fact that it was so easily disproved is why it is fake news.
If you present evidence that proves that the Musk spectacle was not planned then fair enough but as it stands now people can see for themselves.
But i must ask you, do you believe that spectacle with the broken windows to be genuinely unplanned? | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:18 - Nov 25 with 2359 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:03 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
Browder pushed an angle that was easily disproved and the fact that it was so easily disproved is why it is fake news.
If you present evidence that proves that the Musk spectacle was not planned then fair enough but as it stands now people can see for themselves.
But i must ask you, do you believe that spectacle with the broken windows to be genuinely unplanned? |
I wasn’t really discussing the Musk release.
It was obviously a media event, where something was planned, to create a news story. There was quite a good parody of that scenario in a TV program, but it escapes me which one.
However going back to your point, we should not listen to people that invoke “bogeymen” to try and push false information.
That was you point. I am simply agreeing with it, with an example.
We should not listen to people that use bogey men and untruths.
One reason would be if someone does that once or even more, it does somewhat create doubt on anything else they say. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:19 - Nov 25 with 2358 views | StokieBlue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:03 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
Browder pushed an angle that was easily disproved and the fact that it was so easily disproved is why it is fake news.
If you present evidence that proves that the Musk spectacle was not planned then fair enough but as it stands now people can see for themselves.
But i must ask you, do you believe that spectacle with the broken windows to be genuinely unplanned? |
Without actually taking a position, surely the burden-of-proof in this instance is to prove it was planned?
You can't assert something without evidence and then ask someone to prove it isn't the case. That's simply not how it works.
SB |  |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:23 - Nov 25 with 2353 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:18 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
I wasn’t really discussing the Musk release.
It was obviously a media event, where something was planned, to create a news story. There was quite a good parody of that scenario in a TV program, but it escapes me which one.
However going back to your point, we should not listen to people that invoke “bogeymen” to try and push false information.
That was you point. I am simply agreeing with it, with an example.
We should not listen to people that use bogey men and untruths.
One reason would be if someone does that once or even more, it does somewhat create doubt on anything else they say. |
"We should not listen to people that use bogey men and untruths."
An untruth is something that is proven to be untrue.
If you present evidence that proves that the Musk spectacle was not planned then fair enough but as it stands now people can see for themselves. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:31 - Nov 25 with 2345 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:19 - Nov 25 by StokieBlue |
Without actually taking a position, surely the burden-of-proof in this instance is to prove it was planned?
You can't assert something without evidence and then ask someone to prove it isn't the case. That's simply not how it works.
SB |
So you don't think the incident with the window was planned?
Yes or no please. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:36 - Nov 25 with 2338 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:23 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
"We should not listen to people that use bogey men and untruths."
An untruth is something that is proven to be untrue.
If you present evidence that proves that the Musk spectacle was not planned then fair enough but as it stands now people can see for themselves. |
I did say I wasn’t really referring to Musk.
And in your discussions so far, you haven’t really equivocated on who should or shouldn’t be listened to.
I was more really referring to the sentence “He belongs in the same bag of elite-manufactured, decidedly dodgy types as Brian Cox.”, that was part of a post you gave an uppie too.
Now I know uppies are not very granular.
But you do seem quite an advocate for not listening to people that use a bogey man to push fake information.
As I said, I have been in agreement with your stance. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:50 - Nov 25 with 2306 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:36 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
I did say I wasn’t really referring to Musk.
And in your discussions so far, you haven’t really equivocated on who should or shouldn’t be listened to.
I was more really referring to the sentence “He belongs in the same bag of elite-manufactured, decidedly dodgy types as Brian Cox.”, that was part of a post you gave an uppie too.
Now I know uppies are not very granular.
But you do seem quite an advocate for not listening to people that use a bogey man to push fake information.
As I said, I have been in agreement with your stance. |
Oh dear, you are cherry picking a part of a post that i upped and are presuming that i upped the post for that.
You presumed wrong. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:53 - Nov 25 with 2303 views | StokieBlue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:31 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
So you don't think the incident with the window was planned?
Yes or no please. |
Why have you ignored my point? Irrespective of what I think the burden of proof in this instance is entirely on you, surely you can see that?
SB | |
| Avatar - IC410 - Tadpoles Nebula |
| |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:59 - Nov 25 with 2283 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 12:01 - Nov 25 by ElderGrizzly |
I am the deep state... |
Well then ask your mates what they are up to with the editing and report back! |  |
| |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:02 - Nov 25 with 2276 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:53 - Nov 25 by StokieBlue |
Why have you ignored my point? Irrespective of what I think the burden of proof in this instance is entirely on you, surely you can see that?
SB |
Well your honest answer is tied in with your point.
Bulletproof 'armor glass' windows cracked by metal balls thrown by hand. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:05 - Nov 25 with 2269 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 17:50 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
Oh dear, you are cherry picking a part of a post that i upped and are presuming that i upped the post for that.
You presumed wrong. |
I didn’t presume anything, that is why I specifically mentioned that uppies are not granular.
I have been agreeing with your stated position all along. Which you haven’t wavered from.
People that use a bogey man to spread false information should not be listened to. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:09 - Nov 25 with 2261 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:05 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
I didn’t presume anything, that is why I specifically mentioned that uppies are not granular.
I have been agreeing with your stated position all along. Which you haven’t wavered from.
People that use a bogey man to spread false information should not be listened to. |
"I was more really referring to the sentence “He belongs in the same bag of elite-manufactured, decidedly dodgy types as Brian Cox.”, that was part of a post you gave an uppie too."
So what does that tell you about me then considering that the sentence you have cherry picked was about 25% of the post? | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:45 - Nov 25 with 2231 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:09 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
"I was more really referring to the sentence “He belongs in the same bag of elite-manufactured, decidedly dodgy types as Brian Cox.”, that was part of a post you gave an uppie too."
So what does that tell you about me then considering that the sentence you have cherry picked was about 25% of the post? |
It tells me nothing.
If for instance a vegan makes exaggerated claims about veganism, I don’t really think that is a good idea, and would not really be supportive of that kind of thing. And I wouldn’t have a great deal of trust in the particular person.
Wouldn’t stop me being a vegan though.
As I said, I agree with you, we shouldn’t listen to people that use false bogey men and make false claims. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 19:44 - Nov 25 with 2194 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 18:45 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
It tells me nothing.
If for instance a vegan makes exaggerated claims about veganism, I don’t really think that is a good idea, and would not really be supportive of that kind of thing. And I wouldn’t have a great deal of trust in the particular person.
Wouldn’t stop me being a vegan though.
As I said, I agree with you, we shouldn’t listen to people that use false bogey men and make false claims. |
So it tells you nothing then does it?
Can you explain then why you stated it to me in the first place?
"I was more really referring to the sentence “He belongs in the same bag of elite-manufactured, decidedly dodgy types as Brian Cox.”, that was part of a post you gave an uppie too."
Why did you refer to that sentence and then point out that i upped it if you NOW say it tells you nothing? | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:12 - Nov 25 with 2175 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 19:44 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
So it tells you nothing then does it?
Can you explain then why you stated it to me in the first place?
"I was more really referring to the sentence “He belongs in the same bag of elite-manufactured, decidedly dodgy types as Brian Cox.”, that was part of a post you gave an uppie too."
Why did you refer to that sentence and then point out that i upped it if you NOW say it tells you nothing? |
It is quite easy to say why it tells me nothing.
I don't know if you actually read that part of the post, comprehended that part of the post, or thought that part of the post is factually correct, or indeed think it okay to uppie a post with 25% mis-information even if it does violate your stated position on not listening to certain people.
You seemed more interested in the Musk and ball situation, and haven't really mentioned anything else. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:23 - Nov 25 with 2170 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:12 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
It is quite easy to say why it tells me nothing.
I don't know if you actually read that part of the post, comprehended that part of the post, or thought that part of the post is factually correct, or indeed think it okay to uppie a post with 25% mis-information even if it does violate your stated position on not listening to certain people.
You seemed more interested in the Musk and ball situation, and haven't really mentioned anything else. |
So do you often refer to sentences that "tell me nothing" when debating with other posters?
[Post edited 25 Nov 2019 20:30]
| | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:42 - Nov 25 with 2148 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:23 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
So do you often refer to sentences that "tell me nothing" when debating with other posters?
[Post edited 25 Nov 2019 20:30]
|
I haven't been debating with you.
I have been agreeing with you with respect to your position on not listening to people that use bogey men to spread false information. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:52 - Nov 25 with 2131 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:42 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
I haven't been debating with you.
I have been agreeing with you with respect to your position on not listening to people that use bogey men to spread false information. |
Either way, still curious to know though, do you often refer to sentences that "tell me nothing" when in discussion with other posters? | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 21:16 - Nov 25 with 2111 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 20:52 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
Either way, still curious to know though, do you often refer to sentences that "tell me nothing" when in discussion with other posters? |
Well, not sure about the frequency, but obviously yes that will happen.
In this specific case, for the reasons already posted.
And of course, generically, it would be wrong to make an assumption.
I don't need to know your rational on one topic to agree with your stated position on people that post in the manner you described. | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 21:33 - Nov 25 with 2102 views | Bluesquid |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 21:16 - Nov 25 by eireblue |
Well, not sure about the frequency, but obviously yes that will happen.
In this specific case, for the reasons already posted.
And of course, generically, it would be wrong to make an assumption.
I don't need to know your rational on one topic to agree with your stated position on people that post in the manner you described. |
Oh well, just think to highlight to someone a certain part of a post they upped only to then a short while later state that it told you nothing is beyond peculiar.
I mean if that was the case then why bring it up in the first place? | | | |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 21:47 - Nov 25 with 2079 views | eireblue |
| The BBC altering clips of Johnson again (In his favour) on 21:33 - Nov 25 by Bluesquid |
Oh well, just think to highlight to someone a certain part of a post they upped only to then a short while later state that it told you nothing is beyond peculiar.
I mean if that was the case then why bring it up in the first place? |
I thought it a good example from a post you were already discussing with SB, about the position you stated you have. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
