Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

5441 - 5460 of 5798 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,642 Posts
You're not really going to try to defend a website which specialises in conspiracy theories...are you?
Wikipedia? Of course not.

But seriously - did you not read my post about how any alternative opinion is attacked in the very same way that you are now doing. And how people are led to attack them by amateur fact checking sites that themselves are attacked by other fact checking sites. Try fact checking without resorting to such inept fact checking sources and then follow up the sources provided by the attacked piece without the poisoned well provided before you read their input.

But then again. If you look back I didn't either endorse or decry the original piece. I just published it. You leapt to the assumption that I was endorsing it and then that I was defending it because I had called out an attempt to use wiki as a means to discredit it. Two entirely different things.

But as usual in here the first reaction is always to spend time and research into the origin of anything that inflames their cognitive dissonance so that they don't need to spend any time actually addressing the points raised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,545 Posts
But as usual in here the first reaction is always to spend time and research into the origin of anything that inflames their cognitive dissonance so that they don't need to spend any time actually addressing the points raised.
@Hitstirrer This time I will give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you did not see my post #5429 and only responded to #5431. My first reply addressed the weakness of the case made by persons unknown who do not put an author's name to their paper, so it cannot be attributed. Why trust somebody who will not say who they are and what they represent?

If you did see both my posts then your offensive comment above is just nonsense that is firmly rejected and simply laughed at, if by 'they' you mean me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,642 Posts
@Hitstirrer This time I will give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you did not see my post #5429 and only responded to #5431. My first reply addressed the weakness of the case made by persons unknown who do not put an author's name to their paper, so it cannot be attributed. Why trust somebody who will not say who they are and what they represent?

If you did see both my posts then your offensive comment above is just nonsense that is firmly rejected and simply laughed at, if by 'they' you mean me.
I did indeed see #5429 but reject your comment that I was in any way offensive to you as an individual. You may well have decided to wear the referenced hat but that is for you to decide. But it wasn't directed to you individually. In many instances that is how cognitive dissonance works though. The ability to ignore new information that conflicts with a deeply held belief.

But in any case, your comments in #5429 did not attempt to verify any of the numerous points made in the initial piece. Just trot out the standard answer provided by others to refute anything that conflicts with the official story.

Instead, you made great play about the person(s) preferring to remain anonymous. You even dismissed their very lengthy and comprehensive explanations and source references by the device of - Quote - " why trust someone who will not say who they are and what they represent?"

As if that has any bearing whatsoever on the veracity of the words. You glibly dismiss many pages of deeply researched material as not worth considering just because they prefer to stay under the radar? Perhaps by skim reading the initial summary of points to be discussed in depth.

This is what I was referring to earlier. As in the past in this forum over numerous contentious topics, people in general never address the points raised but prefer to expend dozens of posts discussing the writer rather than the words. And then get upset when attention is drawn to that and go on to claim victimhood. But still refuse to read and respond line by line to the points raised in a report. It happens a lot and that comment is again not aimed at you in particular.

I am quite used to that now. And these last few posts have again demonstrated that process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
As in the past in this forum over numerous contentious topics, people in general never address the points raised but prefer to expend dozens of posts discussing the writer rather than the words
I think it is actually very important to know who the writer is, and thus what the writers motives may be - maybe more so than the message ?
But I agree with your general point, and I give the example of Hilary Clintons emails - everyone discussed how bad it was that they should be released, and by whom, but no-one discussed what was in them !!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,642 Posts
I think it is actually very important to know who the writer is, and thus what the writers motives may be - maybe more so than the message ?
Only if the content could be subject to legal action. Hate speech, libel and such. For information that has been compiled by a consortium of people from different disciplines and published by a central organisation then witch-hunting the owners is often used as a diversion to avoid addressing the content itself.

Each person whos immediate action is to research the writers' background looking for dirt to try to discredit them should first ask themselves these questions.

#1 Have I considered my own motive for seeking to unmask the publisher?
#2 Why is that so important to me?
#3 Am I sure that it isn't in order to avoid scrutiny of the message?
#4 Is it important to me to persuade others to avoid even looking?

In this particular manifestation of the 'shoot the messenger' thread entries I will wager that hardly anybody read the entire very comprehensive and lengthy report and few even managed beyond the first three bullet points before their hackles raised and they flew to the fact-checker that matched their own agenda. This is normal. As you say, this is a common tactic. Another example is Assange with desperate attempts to bury both him and his message rather than expose the public to the war crimes committed by the government.

In this thread instance, the fact that the published website is sometimes used to allow alternative views to be given a platform is now being used as ammunition to suggest that everything that they publish must be disregarded. A moments consideration should reveal the illogical basis of that train of thought. But instead, the effect is profound and even level headed people are deceived into discarding the message before it is even read. By all means, pick apart a message by providing sources to show their errors but if those sources are themselves deeply flawed by their own agenda it then becomes a case of choosing your bias. And I have no problem with that. Just with a blanket shut down approach and demonise the messenger tactic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
Mark Sedwill to stand down as UK's top civil servant

From my perspective he has been unable to manage the monumental incompetence of No 10 and the inadequacies of the Civil Service so should go. But, the danger is that the job is impossible and his replacement may not be willing to stand up to the Idiots - particularly after this:

Michael Gove's manifesto for the reform of the Civil Service

Not my normal source of information, but on the principle of "know your enemy ...." :devilish: I'd commend you to all read it - it is very long and wandering, but informative.

The different version of the history of his failures that Gove holds explains his continuing issues. Sadly I think that he has identified some of the problems, but his solutions will only make things worse. :rolleyes:
It’s a little worrying that the government appears to be trying to undo the impartiality off the civil service, I agree I think there will be many problems being caused by Cummings ripping into the civil service like this
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,711 Posts
It’s a little worrying that the government appears to be trying to undo the impartiality off the civil service, I agree I think there will be many problems being caused by Cummings ripping into the civil service like this
It's a very slow coup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,169 Posts
I had to smile at this. They are not trying to undo impartiality at all. But to remove the partisan top-level and re-introduce impartiality to where it should be.
Oh. I thought they were removing the current partiality so they could install their own preference in partiality. Doh!
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
27,204 Posts
I had to smile at this. They are not trying to undo impartiality at all. But to remove the partisan top-level and re-introduce impartiality to where it should be.
I am struggling to tell, TBH...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
I had to smile at this. They are not trying to undo impartiality at all. But to remove the partisan top-level and re-introduce impartiality to where it should be.
If they have to Massively undermine public safety in order to try and get someone artificially pro brexit in place you have to ask whether it’s the right thing to do, it seems very much like a yes man appointment

mind you, generally the opinion is the government has shot itself in the foot with this as they’ve made themselves weaker. Another outstanding move from the tactical genius Cummings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,642 Posts
If they have to Massively undermine public safety in order to try and get someone artificially pro brexit in place you have to ask whether it’s the right thing to do, it seems very much like a yes man appointment
You may have missed it - or your brain still refuses to accept it - but we leave the EU finally in 6 months time. If you were CEO of a company about to relocate the HQ to 200 miles away and had a MD and inner team who were fighting this all the way - would you fire him and install a pro-locate man or allow him to continue to resist using his own cronies and your cash resources? Why allow such an entrenched set of remainers the resources and facilities to continue to resist what has been agreed higher up?

And you continue to confuse the docile yes man concept with a can do and active pro project appointee.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,153 Posts
You may have missed it - or your brain still refuses to accept it - but we leave the EU finally in 6 months time. If you were CEO of a company about to relocate the HQ to 200 miles away and had a MD and inner team who were fighting this all the way - would you fire him and install a pro-locate man or allow him to continue to resist using his own cronies and your cash resources? Why allow such an entrenched set of remainers the resources and facilities to continue to resist what has been agreed higher up?
Poor example. Private companies are ruled by national laws. If a company CEO ordered the relocation of operations in a manner incompatible with national laws, then any objecting employee can topple that CEO.

The current Government differs because they make laws up; they change rules mid-play. Such behaviours are referred to as "cheating" in school playgrounds:
  • False advertising on Brexit figures
  • Unauthorised prorogue
  • Breach of lockdown rules - and maybe an avoidance of council tax at unregistered cottages?
  • Scrapping DfID without consulting cabinet
Some of these issues would be counted again in the longer list of what school kids call "lies".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas carter

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
You may have missed it - or your brain still refuses to accept it - but we leave the EU finally in 6 months time. If you were CEO of a company about to relocate the HQ to 200 miles away and had a MD and inner team who were fighting this all the way - would you fire him and install a pro-locate man or allow him to continue to resist using his own cronies and your cash resources? Why allow such an entrenched set of remainers the resources and facilities to continue to resist what has been agreed higher up?

And you continue to confuse the docile yes man concept with a can do and active pro project appointee.
You may have missed it but we left the EU already. We now need to reorganise to better reflect our new position

Your interpretation of an analogy is also not as I see it. Better to say the CEO has decided to relocate and so the MD provided a detailed outline of the challenges from his experiences and the CEO said “not good enough” and fired him for the much less experienced member of the team who said “oh yes we can do that” but actually has no experience or ability to do it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,047 Posts
Each person whos immediate action is to research the writers' background looking for dirt to try to discredit them should first ask themselves these questions.

#1 Have I considered my own motive for seeking to unmask the publisher?
#2 Why is that so important to me?
#3 Am I sure that it isn't in order to avoid scrutiny of the message?
#4 Is it important to me to persuade others to avoid even looking?
I always look at the background of every author of anything I read online. I want to know (a) what qualifies them to write on the subject and (b) what angle they are coming from. How else can you sort the wheat from the chaff?

There is so much uninformed and/or prejudiced tosh on the internet, that I think some sort of quality filter is essential.

If you really don't care about who writes what you read, I'd suggest that means you also don't care about what you read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,763 Posts
I phoned a non-essential local shop today which I had never used before and they didn't know me, asking if they were open. I asked what their Covid procedures were, and the owner replied 'well, i haven't got it, and you haven't got it, so just come in'. When i got there he came out, helped get something out of the boot, opened the door and in we went. Chatted in the small shop, him approaching me and me backing off like a game of tag. Another customer came along and thoughtfully waited outside till i left. Walking back to the car, a barbers shop was open, a pub/cafe looked open, etc.
Sigh....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,153 Posts
@toscal353

Jesus provided the "lead us not into temptation" phrase that helps in times like that. If we stay home then we don't need to risk personal failures to maintain social distancing ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thomas carter

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,589 Posts
@toscal353

Jesus provided the "lead us not into temptation" phrase that helps in times like that. If we stay home then we don't need to risk personal failures to maintain social distancing ;)
I “think” there are still many more people who are taking the lockdown seriously despite the thousands on the beaches who are not, so hopefully the spread is still being maintained.

on a side note I find it funny how Cummings has rocketed to infamy through this - we have become very close with the people on the street due to the lockdown, and mentioning that we are planning to go and see the parents at the weekend they all drop the same “testing your eyesight eh?”,“just tell Cummings you’re doing it”

I wonder if “doing a Cummings” will become a common saying?
 
5441 - 5460 of 5798 Posts
Top