Obviously everybody knows that in 2014 Victorian rulings was recorded on a telephone conversation saying that she spent $5 billion dollars to create a cool in the Ukraine so in addition to that they implanted a president that she likes who is a new car and that president was told to beat on the Christian Orthodox in the eastern Ukraine and then we agreed to stop killing those Orthodox Christian in East Ukraine and he never fulfilled that promise and the story started in 2014 when the us through Victoria New Orleans the new con lady spent 5 billion to depose the president of Ukraine and to hire in you guy the new guy came in with the instruction to beat on to the Russian Eastern ukrainians and eventually putting made an agreement with the West to stop the killing of the Russian speaking eastern Ukraine the president of the Ukraine did not fulfill that promise and putting kept asking the West to make him stop and he never stopped so he eventually invaded them so that's the story from the beginning it does not start with
I feel you are somewhat impassioned here, Eric and losing your cool. Forgive me if I'm wrong and impertinent but that's how it looks to me.
Your customary clear and methodical style seems missing.
To me this presentation would not get the message across to my peers, people without above average training, skills or experience.
I'm going to be impertinent and bold enough to submit what I think would be a better framework for you to hang this important 'pronouncement' on and that would give it a better chance of wider promulgation:
lie: Iraq was invaded because of intel failure
truth: because of knowing lies the us president told
lie: russia invaded in '22 without provocation
truth: long period of growing provocations and now danger of wwiii
lie: US is arming Taiwan so it can defend itself
truth: Us is arming Taiwan in order to provoke china.
lie: Israel is not an aggressor
truth: Israel has a long history of nothing but aggression.
lie: Trump and Vance caused the contretemps 28 feb.
Thanks, Arthur, I much appreciate your feedback on this; but I am not sure that individuals who have been deceived by U.S.-and-'allied' lies will become persuaded to change their minds MERELY by my presenting to them unsupported contrary allegations. As I have said before, my credo is "Methodology is even more important than findings, because it DETERMINES the findings." If a person REJECTS that meta-methodology ("epistemology"), the person rejects science (which IS that meta-methodology); and, so, cannot be reached by means of it. And, frankly, if I myself were to encounter the type of argument that you are proposing, I too would reject it, BECAUSE it DOES conflict with the way a scientist thinks.
. I never proposed that individuals would be persuaded 'merely' by blah blah...
. I fail to see the relevance in context of this methodology stuff.
. If a person 'rejects' science either knowingly or unknowingly they can still be reached by it for 'science' is simply another word for 'truth' and in the end, we have it an axiom, 'truth will out'.
. I proposed no type of argument that I know of. I proposed a clearer format for presentation of your points is all.
. So I take your gratuitous putting of words in my mouth and the 'rejecting' of them with a shout to be simply somewhat offensive ad hominem.
. So you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine, Eric. 'bye.
You have nothing to apologize for. I thought I understood your comment, but I misunderstood it. I should have asked what you meant. (Frankly, I still don't know what you meant, but that's okay.)
America, the land of civic ‘make-believe.’
Obviously everybody knows that in 2014 Victorian rulings was recorded on a telephone conversation saying that she spent $5 billion dollars to create a cool in the Ukraine so in addition to that they implanted a president that she likes who is a new car and that president was told to beat on the Christian Orthodox in the eastern Ukraine and then we agreed to stop killing those Orthodox Christian in East Ukraine and he never fulfilled that promise and the story started in 2014 when the us through Victoria New Orleans the new con lady spent 5 billion to depose the president of Ukraine and to hire in you guy the new guy came in with the instruction to beat on to the Russian Eastern ukrainians and eventually putting made an agreement with the West to stop the killing of the Russian speaking eastern Ukraine the president of the Ukraine did not fulfill that promise and putting kept asking the West to make him stop and he never stopped so he eventually invaded them so that's the story from the beginning it does not start with
There is no reason to ever engage the MSM. Telling the truth is illegal to them and against their religion.
I feel you are somewhat impassioned here, Eric and losing your cool. Forgive me if I'm wrong and impertinent but that's how it looks to me.
Your customary clear and methodical style seems missing.
To me this presentation would not get the message across to my peers, people without above average training, skills or experience.
I'm going to be impertinent and bold enough to submit what I think would be a better framework for you to hang this important 'pronouncement' on and that would give it a better chance of wider promulgation:
lie: Iraq was invaded because of intel failure
truth: because of knowing lies the us president told
lie: russia invaded in '22 without provocation
truth: long period of growing provocations and now danger of wwiii
lie: US is arming Taiwan so it can defend itself
truth: Us is arming Taiwan in order to provoke china.
lie: Israel is not an aggressor
truth: Israel has a long history of nothing but aggression.
lie: Trump and Vance caused the contretemps 28 feb.
truth: Zelensky did it.
regards,
ab
Thanks, Arthur, I much appreciate your feedback on this; but I am not sure that individuals who have been deceived by U.S.-and-'allied' lies will become persuaded to change their minds MERELY by my presenting to them unsupported contrary allegations. As I have said before, my credo is "Methodology is even more important than findings, because it DETERMINES the findings." If a person REJECTS that meta-methodology ("epistemology"), the person rejects science (which IS that meta-methodology); and, so, cannot be reached by means of it. And, frankly, if I myself were to encounter the type of argument that you are proposing, I too would reject it, BECAUSE it DOES conflict with the way a scientist thinks.
Ah well that's where we part company then.
. I never proposed that individuals would be persuaded 'merely' by blah blah...
. I fail to see the relevance in context of this methodology stuff.
. If a person 'rejects' science either knowingly or unknowingly they can still be reached by it for 'science' is simply another word for 'truth' and in the end, we have it an axiom, 'truth will out'.
. I proposed no type of argument that I know of. I proposed a clearer format for presentation of your points is all.
. So I take your gratuitous putting of words in my mouth and the 'rejecting' of them with a shout to be simply somewhat offensive ad hominem.
. So you can stick it where the sun doesn't shine, Eric. 'bye.
I apologize for having misinterpreted your suggestion, Arthur.
Ah... is that what happened? All a misunderstanding... Then I, in turn, apologise for my aggravation, Eric.
You have nothing to apologize for. I thought I understood your comment, but I misunderstood it. I should have asked what you meant. (Frankly, I still don't know what you meant, but that's okay.)
Yes, well I won't push it. If you don't get it, you don't get it. So be it. Not important in the grand scheme of things. :)