 |
PM |  | |
Quote | | |
Reply | | |
Full Topic | |
| Joined: | Mon Nov 21st, 2005 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 6399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
Did I imply (strongly suggest something), or did someone other than me infer something? Why not just ask? Dictatorial people tend to put words in other people's mouths as if the dictator has a sock puppet. The concept of dictation is one-way communication. The shoe does not fit me. My point had to do more with the process known as gatekeeping.
"...not chasing down every iota of evil is..."
That is called hyperbole, added to a false claim of implication concerning an inference. Why is attack mode the default mode? Why not simply ask? That shoe does not fit me either.
"... smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician..."
That is potentially libelous, but certainly not in that form. Someone is waving an indiscriminate finger at an unspecified evil. Who is an evil politician according to the one making that claim? Who fits that shoe?
"Not wanting to smell the flatulence of every crooked or evil politician, is NOT the same as being "unaware"."
Who said that the one thing claimed is not the other thing claimed? I did not. This is the Man-of-Straw process. It is routine. The creator of the Man-of Straw puts a fallacious process of thought out into the data stream. Who fits that shoe? I do not. I don't know anyone who fits that shoe. Perhaps the one who created that shoe has in mind someone to fit that shoe on; Cinderella?
A sign was placed in the path of information as such: "I only watched a minute of it. Don't want that stuff in my head any more."
Does the gatekeeper shoe fit on the author of those two sentences, in the context of this topic?
It looked to me like someone was warning other people about information that they have judged to be unworthy of credit. I can be mistaken. Some people will read that warning sign, read it as a warning, such as keep out, and those people may take that advice. The information does not flow to those people, because they obey the warning sign, that gate is thereby closed by that gatekeeper. Other people may read that sign and be inspired with greater curiosity. The obvious intent (at least as far as my ability to infer such a thing as motive) is discredit aimed at someone or anyone who might credit the information that exists on the other side of that closed gate.
"I believe you have done him a great disservice by your erroneous implication..."
You have inferred something about what you read. I can tell you as many times, in as many words, as possible, to let you know that your inference as to my intended implication is incorrect, at least as far as I am able to find the intended meanings of your words. In your mind, as far as I can tell, you have determined, on your own authority, what my intention “is”, and you have formed a belief concerning your ability to find the intended meaning of my words. Is your trust in your belief accurate or something else? Do you understand the difference between an inference (in your control) and an implication (something I am in control of while I write)?
"...not that he probably cares about your uppity superiority..."
That is called an ad-hominem attack.
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"vicious ad hominem attacks"
You do not know me, you have no idea (very likely false ideas based upon your resort to ad-hominem attacks) what is, or is not, my character flaws, of which there are many, and all that is beside the point: off-topic.
"...nor would most of the thousands of people who have read and followed his postings and quest to promote freedom over the years."
If it acts like a gatekeeper, then perhaps it is a gatekeeper. How would one know without asking?
Is it an example of gatekeeping?
Was there already a Court Case in Florida involving the daughter of Robert Maxwell? Is that on-topic? Who might be targetting Jeffrey Epstein? Who might have a clue as to what might be possible if the idea was to prevent a false suicide, which would be an assassination, of Jeffrey Epstein? If someone, or a lot of people, ignore the information from sources like Steve Pieczenik, why - what is the motive - in doing so?
What is the stated motive?
"Bill, THANK YOU for sharing your few minutes of watching that crap, so I did not have to. I join you in not wanting that stuff in my head."
If there is an actual trial, a trial by the people themselves, not a trial by the fake government, then is it possible that the flow of innocent lives flowing into a figurative meat grinder will abate? If the bird is dead, it don't sing; that gate is closed too.