Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "Breaking: Gunman Kills 5 Inside Maryland Newsroom" video.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Collin's dictionary defines "fake news" as, "false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting".
That covers things like the Gulf of Tonkin incident (it didn't happen) to adverts posing as news.
English doesn't define itself and it's not just technical exploits that caused "fake news" a lot of it is completely intentional.
What Jimmy said after talking about the Greek fascist and Trump's comment about the 2nd amendment, was "I hope they're not linked" (to the shooting). Well it seems they weren't; Jimmy was wrong ... and so are you because that's exactly what he said. You said Jimmy has a political show, but this isn't about politics, rather it's an example of someone trying to use something to further their agenda. So I agree with the OP, "At the time you put this video up the motive was known and in an odd way you just qualified as fake news Jimmy". I think that's an accurate description.
Some news agencies do create the outrage: they choose what they focus on; try to tell people what to think (although that backfired on the spectacularly last American election (and in the UK EU referendum) and they've already been caught making things up before ... As Randolf Hearst said, get me the pictures I'll get you the war" (and he did).
A year of repeating that Russia lost Clinton the election, with no evidence ... fabrication; fake news and from those who only approve of democracy when they get the answer the want (the enemy).
Just lately some used "lying by ommission" to create outrage with the "children in cages" story. Turns out it wasn't a Trump policy; it's far more complicated once the whole story is known; so it's a hoax; fabrication; fake news.
Now as far as I can see Jimmy has joined this group.
There are a lot of variations of fake news, at least the Collin's dictionary definition recognises that.
1
-
Of course the Gulf of Tonkin incident was fake news (that's because it didn't happen) ... and it wasn't the media of the time simply reporting a quote (hearsay), it was the American government using their media to perpetrate a hoax on the American people in order to go to war. Many in the media weren't innocent in this; they actively led the call for war (and not for the first time), they willingly acted as distributors of propaganda.
A computer "exploit" might also be down to hardware, that's because the internet wasn't designed to do many of the things it's used for today. However that's beside the point; fake news can be spread by: telephone; newspapers (as we have seen) or by 24 hour rolling news (that uses repetition to hammer home the point). What I'm talking about is people (or groups) intentionally trying to hoax the general public and it doesn't have to be political. The general public were assured in the 50's that smoking was good for them; a number of studies were published (by scientists whose funding clearly depended on finding that smoking is somehow beneficial); that's fake news as well. It's a type of distortion, like propaganda and if you (as a scientist or doctor) won't get the information then they'll find some else who will. It comes at a price though: loss of credibility; erosion of trust and that is one of the problems the media has a present; they are not trusted as reliable narrators. This is very corrosive.
Jimmy was wrong ... well then Jimmy need to learn to shut up sometimes and stop trying to use this shooting for political reasons.
I understand the difference between fact based journalism and opinion based journalism; however many in the main stream media like to combine the two in one article (like Jimmy just did). Now I wonder do you understand the difference, or was it something you just heard? You say, "every news organisation makes a clear distinction by using proper language" but that is untrue. Using the term "every" doesn't strengthen your position either, it actually weakens it. If you are going to troll, you need to be better than this. Unfortunately (for us); certain media outlets go to great lengths to find an unnamed government spokesperson; or say the department of so and so say ... it's usually the third paragraph where their hatred is revealed. Currently the trend is fear-mongering ...
It was so stupid of the Clinton campaign to try and claim that President Trump gets left alone with the nuclear trigger (when as former secretary of state she knows the drill). The likes of CNN who ran with that, lost so much credibility with that hoax ... but then nobody said the hoaxers were smart.
Sorry but "Russia-gate" is still a thing: with some five (Republican led) investigations, having found nothing (except some Russian businessmen who live in America and who ran facebooks ads); maybe nobody is reporting it so much now, but this is one hoax that Clinton must be made to pay dearly for as it nearly rekindled McCathyism (and no I'm not a Russian-bot ... America needs to stamp out corruption and the download speed shows the leak was an inside job (it was the truth being leaked) and as we've seen, those telling the truth get jailed or have to leave America ... that's how far the corrosion has gone.
So are you a troll, or just hanging on to 20th century a bit too long?
You are wasting your time trolling me, but I'll address your last three points ....
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You would have to reveal who you mean by "they" ... before I could reply to that.
If you mean (by they) .... some in media, or even an entire media outlet; then sure: they are sometimes complicit in hoaxing the public; we have seen smear campaigns (and plenty of fear-mongering); at one point we saw political parties all trying to court Murdoch (who seemed to be viewed as a king-maker, until that myth fell apart). One of the biggest myths today is that there is a viable left wing party in America; when both main parties are clearly right wing and the Green and Liberal parties don't count. That's an attempt to move the political spectrum to the right; it's a distortion; almost laughable really when Clinton's foreign policy appears to be slightly to the right of Hitler.
Actually by "they" I mean those who give millions to politicians and the ones who accept it. I doubt they can see much wrong with it; one is, I'm told, the richest man in the world; who owns a newspaper; gives hundreds of millions to the CIA (?!) and whose company has never (in my understanding) declared a profit. That's the kind of madness that we are supposed to accept, the we have the wealth income gap reaching the point where there is war and if, for example, the speaker of the hose has a personal fortune of over $100,000,000, it's a safe bet that she's not serving the country first.
Now you say there is no fake news (yet you previously provided your definition of it) and I wouldn't trouble yourself about my intellect, reading skills, or comprehension; that's just an attempt at deflection (something, it appears Trump was employed to be).
What I described (in "run an attack piece") was simply a mechanism which can be used to distort social reality, or try to hoax the general public. Sure it's an opinion piece; the government is letting kids down in another country by not intervening ... however it ignores the very plain fact that America is not fit to be the World's policeman; that the source could be non-existent and that type of fake news is also known as a false flag attack. That's how recently a Western coalition (America; the UK and France) fired missiles into Syria, in support of the army of Islam. Later on the biological (or gas) attack was shown to be fake and so the msm dropped the story. Looks like Syria and Russia finally got to stop the overthrow of a legitimate government by Western backed rebels. The media is clearly complicit in this and probably did more damage to the American public after 9/11 than the "terrorists" by hammering home the images for months on end.
"Political parties do not provide news" ... yes they do. The election cycle dominates the news; it goes on for far too long and it's become a hateful thing now. Maybe it's the "win at all costs" attitude that seems so popular in the West, or extremists ... but with the political system polarized; the banks invincible and politicians swimming in money, it is damaging the country.
Yeah sure there are no doubt stupid people ... it's one of these bell shaped curve things so common in the social realm ... so 5% of the group will be really good at something; 5% really bad and the rest are somewhere in between. It's not going to win any arguments claiming that others are stupid. Clinton with her "basket of deplorables" speech displayed incredible ineptitude (imo). She certainly got into the news with that; no counter-fitting required (she said it) and I guess it was because she started to believe her own publicity. It's costs money to conduct a poll; somebody is paying for answers and the answer was, Clinton was a lock for President. What a laugh ... and the same thing happened in the Brexit referendum in the UK.
Anyway it's nothing to do with my being gullible, or not, I'm telling you what happened and some of the reasons why ... Actually Clinton lost because Democrat voters didn't turn out in their usual numbers. In any case it's always a two horse race, both are right-wing, so it was a vote for war or war.
Returning to the nonsense in the above clip ... if you are President it's not really advisable to have a position on guns and gun control; it's a political hot potato; you can't win. Trump said it was an issue for 2nd amendment people and so it is; but the claim it was a call to violence is demonstrably false. Jimmy either doesn't that or doesn't want to try and that doesn't help me trust his judgement.
Still it was interesting watching Clinton with her "we came, we saw, he died" comment, take ownership of NATO justice (it's a lynching) and sign her own political epitaph, but it dragged America's name through the mud and for that she must pay.
It's been fun; but since you can't see the problem(s) I doubt we will get to possible solutions. All these smart people, the self proclaimed "elite" ... well take a look around, they clearly aren't that clever.
The military/ industrial/ banking cabal rolls on ...
1
-
It's quite clear (despite the use of quotation marks) that you are using the term "they" to refer to a different group than I am ... If you have the reading comprehension skills you claim then I would have thought you'd have picked up on that. So just to be clear "they" (in context) refers to a group of greedy individuals who put their wants before the needs of the country (not "they" the media ... although a couple of media barons (now and in the past) may qualify for membership of both groups). What you just did was narrow the context, so while the quote is correct your use of it is not.
No fake news how I define it (?) Well if you care to read back, you'll find it's the Collin's dictionary definition I used; so if you have a problem with that then surely your argument is with them (the dictionary) and not me.
"A mechanism which can be used to distort social reality" Well certainly that description isn't just confined to pedlars of fake news; advertisers have been trying it for decades, but there are certain things they are not allowed to do such as making the claim they are "the best". Another description for advertising is bragging; the advertisers and/or product manufacturers may genuinely believe the product is "the best", but that opinion has to be qualified by empirical evidence or it can't be used. Other groups also attempt to alter social reality: movie makers; stage magicians and writers of fiction for example, but that's not technically fake news, it's fakery for entertainment purposes. However if a magician claims the public can win money at "the shell game" then proceeds to take money from them, that crosses the line into fake news.
The line is not clearly defined and legislators are always playing catch-up; so as the term "fake news" is a recent concept (Trump claims he invented it, I would only agree he used the expression a lot) we are still awaiting legislation and still discovering what it is and what it does. I would also suggest that it's malleable ... so if legislators ban "the shell game", the hucksters now unveil "find the lady".
Let me ask you two questions here, a man down the pub told me I can win money at the shell game, is that fake news?
The other question is how do you write in bold text on youtube if you would (I can use less words then).
On the matter of the fourth estate. I'm well aware (already) of the works of Thomas Carlisle; David Hume and Adam Smith; it's required reading here. "The fourth estate" in my opinion is likely to be an accurate description of what might be called "power bases" at that time in history. Things have moved on from them and I believe what we are looking at today is a group, or groups, who have set out to control all the estates.
I'm not sure about your definition about "news" though (never mind "fake"). I'm amazed the Republicans don't get as much flak as they should for having a party mechanism that produced Trump as their candidate. However if Trump tweets "Mexican wall will be build" then that is reported in the news. Trump doesn't print the newspapers, but he's making news. Actually because he tweets he's bypassing one of the fourth estate. None of this trump will (highlighted) say in a speech on Tuesday business ... Now it's unfiltered. News is just another name for"new information" so certainly politicians make news.
I'll answer the last bit below ...
1
-
.... it's been fun, but ....
You offer your (unsolicited) opinion on me, but there are no people like me; just me. Actually I usually look at the cartoons first, but no I do read the headlines and the full article, sometimes twice; but only on certain subjects. I took to circling the emotive terms as these indicate opinion and as I said (way back) many msm articles followed a pattern (undeniable fact; opinion, dread conclusion); this happened on either side of the debate, so not a partisan issue really. When it comes to scientific papers sources are very important, but if the source is given as: an un-named government spokesman; a spokesperson for the President or the department of (whatever) released a statement, then it might as well be a recipe for fudge. By the way I doubt I can take criticism from someone who starts a sentence ... "you lost or were never taught precise language ... " and to the rest of it, sez you?!
When you say, "a news article is always like a scientific paper." that is an invalid statement. Articles about: fashion; science and politics all exist in different realms so obey their own separate rule structures and have to be written about differently. In other words: in the realm of science the law of gravity isn't open to negotiation; in the social realm it always, those for, those against and those who don't know/ don't care and it's anybodies guess what is next years fashion.
Certainly the matter gets down to what can be considered a fact. In matters of science the empirical method was discovered during the Scottish age of Enlightenment. Independent verification of results and that can be regarded as fact. There are specialist publications for this, but the msm often "freak out" the public with badly written science articles "black hole machine may destroy the universe" (it didn't).
The media is far from blameless in this "fake news" outpouring. Providing misleading information happens from time to time; but many are on-side when it comes to war; do distribute propaganda and avoid covering certain issues at times.
Misquotes or quotes out of context aside, sure it's fine to say person A said "something"; it's even better if person A comes forward to confirm it; but if it's that the world will end next Tuesday, it's worse than nonsense (it causes panic).
The problems today are: why aren't we already on another planet (science); who controls meta-=data (aka who do I belong to) and in the abstract realm, it a faulty understanding of money (some depend on this staying like that by the way). Those are key issues, but hey the royal family are having a baby.
It's nothing to do with intellect; fake news is a diversion; I'm sure intentional and I'd say these days if you want something done you'd better do it yourself as your tax dollars are misappropriated (as I see it).
1
-
I set the context ... you quoted it, therefore "they" refers to individuals or groups that are rich or powerful enough to "lean" on government. If you think they don't exist I would refer you to the "Robber Baron" era where huge state funds were leveraged; they definitely do exist. Would you like a list? If you want to talk about "they" the media, sure carry on; but I don't see media groups as simply relaters of fact. Sometimes they act under instruction as shown by a clip of presenters all including the same phrase; some clearly get behind parties or candidates, it's the political donations bit that is a bridge too far for me. Sure it must be easy to preach to the converted but how clueless do they think the viewer is (?), that's a rhetorical question, if they are paying someone over $33,000 * a day* (thanks for that) all I'm saying is they'll probably say anything you want them to say. I'm looking for reliable narrators and couldn't recommend one at the time.
No fake news how Collin's dictionary defines it
Well if you mean fake news defined as "false, often sensational, information disseminated under the guise of news reporting" then I'd go with that; but if you find another definition that seems better by all means ...
It's a British source, but came top of the google hit parade; so what would you give as an example of fake news?
How about a journalist who created a fictitious character that he quotes (as an authority figure) ... that comes under false I suppose?
Advertisers are distributors of information, but are also a very powerful influence on society. This leads into the area of ratings and polls; censorship and does subliminal advertising work (no). The quote wasn't helpful (trying what?). When the sponsors demand changes to content I get a bit suspicious; pushing product is their main motivation (profit) but changing the ending of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" to include a religious theme was, lets call it, a commercial decision. That and the sponsors backing out. I've no problem with public service adverts advising kids not to play with matches, or get a smoke detector ... getting that info out is fine with me; happy to pay for it too.
On the subject of when magic turns into highway robbery. The problem here is more how to come up with meaningful legislation. I doubt we will solve that here. Legislators don't provide news as such, true but their main role is to maintain the structure of tribal law "aka the law of the land". It's not really news that their word is law (it literally is); but a law like an alcohol prohibition has individuals moving to a territorial morality (my rules, my values).
In the man down the pub question, I think it's more about the quality of information rather than the people. "Clueless" is maybe a bit harsh, but "The Post" take ownership here ... instead I'd go for ""Find the Lady" tricksters" and advertise "Harry "the hat" Anderson. I would call it fake news though that you'll ever "find the lady".
Still no nearer deciding who is pulling the strings, tweeting is just direct communication with the masses (just don't tweet coffofe) but that's showbiz. Who actually "makes the news" then would you say?
1
-
1
-
1
-
It's up to you if you want to disagree with the dictionary; I regard Collin's dictionary as a reputable source (mainly because they haven't tried to sell me something).
Do you mean it's not news to you that the building is on fire? Of course it's news and it alters behaviour as people will be inclined to leave the building. Problem here is that the information (on this occasion) is false. The question for society is where to draw the line between freedom of speech and criminal behaviour. Of course it's news that the building is on fire and it's up to you want you do with it.
Again, no; it's idle speculation and it's flat out wrong (based on information available at the time) and using the dead to promote a political agenda seems rather cheap to me. It has little to do with the second amendment as: shot-guns are unlikely to be banned; it seems clear the perpetrator wanted to kill these people (so if it wasn't a shotgun and smoke-bombs, there are a whole range of weapons available) and trying to link this to Trump is a crock.
As I say, what is Jimmy trying to achieve here, because all he is doing is guessing badly.
Maybe Jimmy doesn't fully understand the medium he is working in?
I only recognise the difference between fact based journalism and opinion based journalism; if the two types are mixed in the same article then it can be used maliciously.
Jimmy doesn't seem to realise he's not a "breaking news" media outlet. He hasn't got a live feed, or a reporter on the scene and the time lag created by recording, editing and downloading means he is several hours out of date. That's what he doesn't seem to understand and it's making him and the show look bad.
I'm not saying fake news is everywhere. The start of the clip is fine, but it's the undeniable fact ... then it's followed by opinion (which is wrong) ... then it's doom and gloom ... remember the black guy shot running way.
That is exactly the same template as the msm use for fake news; I wonder if it's catching, because now he's doing it too.
Of course he can say what he wants; he just needs to start with, "In my opinion ...". Trying to blame the Russians, or Trump, or trigger happy police doesn't cut it though.
I don't see the objective so I don't trust him on this
Nothing anti-intellectual about this at all; actually it's the other way around, if individuals, or groups, hide their true objective; I've every reason not to start from a position of trust. I also regard distributors of illogical thought to be my enemy; so I don't accept things like, incentive for the rich = more money/ incentive for the poor = less money; because that's much worse than nonsense.
Everything I don't trust has to be fake news, is something I never said ... based in what ignorance? What are you talking about?
As I say, if there is no declared objective in a belief structure; then it's a strong candidate for fakery of some kind. Belief structures require an objective.
Here is some news from Isao Hamimoto ... I think it's real ... see what you make of it.
v=cjAqR1zICA0
1
-
Again, you are just making things up and you don't seem to understand what the term "news" means.
I regard Collin's dictionary as a reliable source for the definition of English terms and phrases; I see few other reliable sources today (The Financial Times is one perhaps, on money). So what you say is simply untrue!
You should read the Collin's dictionary definition of "news" because you seem to be guessing (badly).
*1. uncountable noun
News is information about a recently changed situation or a recent event.*
So if someone tells you the building is on fire, that's news and if they tell you it's on fire when it isn't, that's fake news. If you wait until the newspapers tell you the news the building is on fire you'll likely be yesterdays news.
Since the public have been repeatedly told the attack on Syria was to protect children, but now it's become fairly clear it's about an oil pipeline; then perhaps you'll see why a hidden objective can be dangerous. The American public might respond to a humanitarian objective, only that turned out to be fake. Had they been told it's really about oil and money I doubt the hawks would have got their war (which they lost by the way). This is how "they" fool the public. Jimmy's clip here stinks of the same thing.
I never claimed anything of the sort (that's revisionism by you). You said The Jimmy Dore Show was a political program; I agreed, so what are you talking about?
I've given you the template a lot of the msm use. A click-bait headline; the article begins with an undeniable fact; then turns to opinion (using emotive terms) and then there is a conclusion that's either doom and gloom or propaganda. It's not that they're out to get me, what they are trying to do is hand out bogus information. The public are therefore being hoaxed and often disseminate half-truths and lies. Are you trying to tell me you haven't spotted this?
One of the big hoaxes is the creation of a fictitious "left" in American politics. Neither main party have any intention of supporting things like the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, because their funding comes from there and there is nothing left wing about either of them. So the Democrats (well most of them) have misappropriated the term "left" (actually they are right wing). No wonder Americans are confused, also the term "progressive" doesn't mean anything at all (not all progress is good, after all).
No-one is hiding their true objective ... are you a Sorros troll?
Of course they are ... The hunt for WMD's wasn't a hunt for WMD's (Hussein had proposed trading Gold for his countries oil); the hunt for Bin Laden, wrong country, they found and killed him (without a court decision) and America is still in Afghanistan (16 years now?) so it wasn't for that; the Federal reserve may not have any Gold, but nobody is allowed to look; the lynching of Gadaffi (after he proposed Gold for oil too); that wasn't anything to do with saving lives, it was regime change.
Do you want more examples? I've got plenty.
No need to be paranoid with these people pulling the strings and where do we fit in; why we are cannon fodder; or numbers or a commodity to be bought and sold. So you just took all the above at face value did you?
Just as I said, "*distributors of illogical thought are the enemy*" That's what I said, your interpretation of that (suggesting paranoia) is incorrect and if you want to turn to name calling be my guest .... The American public has been lied to repeatedly (as I've shown); people aren't responding to fear-mongering like they used to do (worn out worrying I guess), so now it's outrage and sensationalism; meanwhile America exports $2 Trillion in weapons to some rather unsavoury characters (all state subsidised too).
Again you use a clumsily constructed sentence to try and criticise my grammar; would it interest you to know I'm qualified in English; it's my first language and that I've lived in: America; Russia; China; darkest Africa and all over Europe. So I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that there is much more to a county than two political parties.
This Jimmy Dore Show clip, is an example of very poor journalism and show lack of respect for the dead, as he tried to use them to further his agenda (unknown). That's the problem, it's so cheap it looks fake ... and very well might be.
1
-
If you want to argue with the dictionary people, don't let me stop you; but it does make you look a bit idiotic.
People can be called "the news"; it can be published information in newspapers, on TV or radio, but it's primarily new information.
So when someone in a shop told me that one tower of the World Trade Centre collapsed and the other was on fire, that was news to me; however I immediately went home and turned on the TV; mainly for confirmation.
Of course that was news.
Your definition of "news" and "fake news" is far too narrow; Collin's have the correct definitions of both terms, you do not.
I'll refer you to the Jimmy Dore Show and the official line you can find yourself.
v=NjOr2YzrZDY
Oh so now it's a commentary show; political commentary though?
What do you know about my lack of precision; you are just talking rubbish (again); I deal in precision; Ad hominem attacks mean nothing to me, my work speaks for itself. A tip: stop pretending you know me; you don't.
A headline is never presented as a fact ... that's a false statement. "Pound drops 2 cents against Dollar" can be considered factual; it's just when terms like: crash; poorly or fears appear in a headline it's almost certain it's watered down to an opinion piece.
Besides you didn't understand what I said ... I said the headline in, fake news articles, is very often click-bait (sensational) "Gunman Kills 5 Inside Maryland Newsroom" (as above) is sensational enough, but we know (by now) that the title is factual. The first paragraph is where CNN and FOX (and others) give a fact, that is indisputably true (as Jimmy did); then the article moves from fact to opinion. I find it's more obvious when disagreeing with the point of the article; if I agree I tend to give the benefit of the doubt (at least for a while). Then the conclusion is either fatalistic or some sort of personal attack. They (the American msm) been doing this for over two years now, it's getting a bit old now.
"No news claimed that there were wmds and no news claimed that there was a hunt for them"
theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/25/iraq.iraq
No you are mistaken, it was never out of the news for months.
I'm not interested in even trying to prove I'm not paranoid, or that I'm not a dog. I know what paranoia is; I even worked in a psychiatric hospital as a Summer job after I left school.
I just showed you that the government and msm ran a campaign and funded "the rebels" in Syria (that Jimmy Dore article); the pictures of gassed children (like the ones Nikki Haley held up in the UN) were shown to be fake as was the alleged gas attack. Nikki said she wouldn't show the pictures (at that time) so instead went on with a flowery description on the (alleged) content ... and still the UN wouldn't sanction action. Actually it was vetoed (remember Libya is still in turmoil) so America (plus the UK and France) went ahead regardless.
Sure people make mistakes, but it seems clear now: it was dust (not gas); the coalition fired missiles in support of "The army of Islam" and it wasn't for humanitarian reasons at all. Chillingly it was for an oil pipeline to try an undercut Russia.
Now there was fakery in their somewhere; I consider Nikki Haley to be a shameless liar and whoever bet on the oil pipeline lost their investment.
No need to be paranoid with creeps like this around!
That's the problem, it's so cheap it looks fake
In other words it's beneath contempt to use the dead to try and further an unrelated political issue and that's what Jimmy staggered in to (just like CNN and FOX).
1
-
Opinion, no that was fact. The shop assistant conveyed accurately events happening at that time. One tower was down at that time and the other was on fire, so it was accurate news.
Commentary on politics though? That's what I asked.
What lack of precision, what paranoia, what inability with the English language do you perceive in me? You seem to keep wanting to make it a personal issue. The English language is a communication medium, you clearly understand what I'm writing, so what does precision have to do with it? Is this something you've heard somewhere, because I don't know what you're talking about?
A stupid person ... there you go again. If the Financial Times carries the headline "Pound drops 2 cents against Dollar" then you can take that to the bank; with certain conditions: it's the price at a certain time-point (so it's already old news); it may be a price given at a fixed time (eg UK market opens) and once a later edition comes out it supersedes the previous one. The article doesn't need a source (yet) just being in the Financial Times means it has a certain credibility.
Actually correctly written articles start with a premise, first paragraph and end with a conclusion, last paragraph ... there may be arguments for and against in the body of the article ... but the msm don't do that much now, it's usually just a rant.
Also a headline doesn't have to be a conclusion; it can be but it might just as easily be a speculative question. Any headline with a question mark is unlikely to be a conclusion.
We didn't need sources for the opinion expressed on the program; the people speaking are addressing the viewer (and each other) directly. I agree it's not news once it moves to guessing as to the reasons five people were murdered; it's actually rather disrespectful; I don't quite know what to call it.
Re: "The hunt for wmd"
Where have you been?
1
-
continued ...
This was the main excuse for: America; the UK and France (them again) to invade Iraq. Despite Hussein being a former ally; the Western msm started to describe him as a monster ... the gas attack on his own people (see Syria), probably happened but it was the West that sold him the chemicals. Then there was the line that the West could be hit with a wmd (see N. Korea); they gave a time in minutes, but that was all made up as was "the dodgy dossier" that Blair concocted (total fiction; misrepresentation) and eventually the UN agreed to a second Gulf war ... to get these wmd's. Only they never ever found any and they gave up searching two years after they got their war; Hussein hung (see Gadaffi). Another lie then, or were they just mistaken ... the public gave them the benefit of the doubt.
I'm telling you straight; these are not nice people; they are prepared to try and hoax a whole nation and their real objective wasn't a public safety issue; it was that the West can't afford to trade Gold for oil; not only financially, but it would weaken the hold of the $/oil mechanism on the world economy. It seems clear that "they" are prepared to destroy countries and kill leaders to maintain a vast income.
Really all of this is available by using Google; it's no secret what happened and afterwards they all forgave each other (the ones still alive).
Afghanistan has Opium and Lithium (and natural gas); Libya has the best quality oil in the World, but due to the clumsiness of Clinton and her gang; it's now a Muslin state under Sharia law and still in turmoil.
Still "they" rather shot themselves in the foot, by trying to sanction Russia; maybe they started to believe their own publicity?
The CRIBS countries set up their own bank; they won't be using the £/oil mechanism; the Europeans aren't to happy, because sanctions on Russia hit them too and trade tariffs, I'm told they never work out well.
So we've been told a lot of lies (it's not a recent phenomenon, but it is correct to blame the dishonest and corrupt ... or it encourages others). I think this also follows a template: demonise a foreign leader; push for an "intervention", then end up killing more people than the tin-pot dictator to whom you sold the weapons. So now "they" (as I see it) want to kick up a lot of dust; fake news" is one way; throwing abuse to close down debates or getting a 50 cent army to do it for you.
You're not a "sock-puppet" are you?
1
-
No, really it's you that needs to go and learn about logic. You have studied logic and philosophy, haven't you(?); because I have.
The shop assistant conveyed a statement, at that time, which was a fact. Of course this is a developing story as later the second tower collapsed. It's not an opinion like margarine tastes better than butter, which is an opinion with which you can agree, or disagree. If the person offering that opinion is being paid a lot of money by a margarine company, then I might wonder how honest an opinion they are giving; but it seems people are all wired up differently; some individuals even say they dislike both; but I prefer butter to margarine and that is a true statement (as far as I'm concerned). So I've been given news of an attack on the World Trade Centre, it's either true, or false, it's not an opinion; so I went to find corroborating evidence. Had it been a lie it could be one kind of "fake news" (unreliable narrator); or perhaps someone confused a drama with reality like with the war of worlds radio show (lost in translation) or it was wilful distribution of misinformation (malicious gossip). Turns out it wasn't any of these "fake news" types, it was factually correct.
Yes, on politics; that's what Jimmy usually does.
I don't know how you comment on precision relates to me, but Jimmy (and his co-hosts) turned from fact to wild speculation.
Was the gunman influenced by some some "attention-seeking fascist kid" (my words), no Jimmy this is what police would call "a domestic". No need to pause and look at the camera for dramatic effect, your opinion is wrong; viewers on other channels already have other information. The format of the show is too slow to cover breaking news; speculation is unwelcome over tragedy (it could even start a riot) so either Jimmy is unaware of his shows limitations or he's riding over that to sell something.
It should be crystal clear by now that even if a President wanted to amend the second amendment it's a political hot potato and this one doesn't. By the way on the subject of precision: Trump is fond of making ambiguous statements; the matter of control is a perfect matter on which not to take a stand. By leaving the issue to those "2nd amendment people" (he says); he's passing the buck; not singling out groups like the NRA or their opposition; yet some of the msm translated that into some kind of a call to arms (misrepresentation/ lost in translation). The difference between you and me (I think) is that I believe it's intentional and malicious.
I'll translate
Q President Trump what is your position on: guns; gun control and the 2nd amendment?
A I don't want to know, next question ...
No, not every news article requires sources; there are established writers in established news papers and what the reader often gets is the view of the writer of the article. There isn't the room to provide a bibliography; list of sources and it could even be an article written in satirical fashion, where only regular readers understand the symbolism (names are changed to avoid legal action).
Why would it be utter stupidity to not simply accept that the Financial Times knows what they are talking about? Unlike other msm outlet their business model doesn't depend on sensationalism or the "what if?" concept or horoscopes. 2 cents down is all I really need to know; but to me that might just mean a slightly more or less expensive foreign holiday. To others though it could be 2 cents on a million imported items or (these days) a whole bank could be lost after betting on a number being reached on some index (see Barings bank).
Actually I'd say you'd be stupid not to accept the headline at face value, because the Financial Times depends on being as close to the facts as possible. However it should be pointed out that to the majority of individuals in society, that headline actually means nothing at all.
By the way that headline is not a conclusion (if so, then you're statement that all headlines are conclusions is invalid). Reporting a price at market opening is vital information to some; but although 2 cents is a fact the article is only a snap-shot of a dynamic system. By the time the type is set; the papers printed; delivered to shops, bought and read ... of course the market has moved on. So the headline isn't a conclusion it's just a snap-shot.
For those who have built a supercomputer right next to the stock exchange; who can trade a million shares in a fraction of a second ... the Financial Times must look like a historical document, or a record of their handiwork. They can "anticipate" big share orders so buy first; the big order pushes up the price and then they sell. To me that's "insider trading" but it's considered legal?! That's why "they" got really very upset when some individuals started spoofing them....
Some kid in his bedroom would send in a huge buy order (for shares) then immediately cancel it (legal); he had previously bought shares under another account name (legal?) .... so when "they" hop in and put in their order it's actually their money that pushes up the price (that huge buy order never arrives) and the kid sells the shares in the other account. To me that's highly amusing, a kid with a PC turning over a bunch of "skimmers", but "they" were very angry (it seems) and as the American government now made it a federal matter; I think it's clear who owns who.
What annoys me is all this insanity; the sheer effort; the man hours devoted to this sort of crap. Sure it's great to be an insider trader; but it's parasitic behaviours and only serves the interest of a few. The kid got off, of course, once his idea became news people started to think about what was really going on I expect.
I've written a rather wrong reply because there are matters going on the EU parliament about data laws, so I'll be going to them shortly for the day. So I'll skip through your last points.
I don't know anything about bears and their relationship to fruit. With news reporting it's fact; or opinion (and if the two are mixed it's either opinion or something like sludge).
With fact based journalism; like Nature; New Scientist while they may sometimes publish hypothesis (before being peer reviewed to an actual theory); but it's either a fact or it's not. In opinion based journalism a "theory" is more like a hunch (the term is used differently), that's just a feature of the language; some journalist don't seem to recognise the difference. That's their problem though.
Described him as a monster
What I mean is that when a person is described as: evil; brutal or a danger to others; that this is emotive language (about feelings). If you notice, some news agencies slip in these "feelings" that they have. Sure it's in their opinion; the media outlet might even say that the content on this show isn't necessarily their view. However before war; "brutal dictator" is just one of the usual "opinions". Really this reveals a lot about the writer and distributor (their position); as to brutal dictators, they include: Kings Queens; Shahs; Sultans; the Pope ... it doesn't seem to have been a problem before?
I'll give you and example of the msm template later if you are still interested (probably tomorrow tho'). Do the clips and other links I sent play?
I should really try to find two articles (for sake of balance) pre-election, but I really haven't any more time to spend pretending both parties and their candidates are any different. So how about one having a go at Trump, since Clinton is yesterdays news?
So we've been told a lot of lies
Yup! The ones I don't like are the ones where groups or individuals profit from lies; or put money before people ... I see most of the fake news as being a way to hide some unfortunate truths; to kick up dust.
As I see it "they" are playing a game; we aren't part of it, but they're using our money.
I'm sure I'll get to correctly or incorrectly, looking at an msm article; I gtg.
We still haven't decided who "they" are ... oh wait a knock at the door.
1
-
Of course it was a fact ... that was what was happening at that time (attack on world trade centre in progress; one tower down, one on fire) in lower Manhattan. This differs from opinion, like "I think next week there will be an attack on the world trade centre" (which is opinion). Are you denying that the information I received was factual?
Factual information is not an opinion, but saying ... and I think the second one will fall down too ... and that would be opinion (until it happened). If it wasn't a fact then, when then did it become a fact?
Yes, Jimmy is free to talk rubbish and lower the shows credibility; it's his show; no argument there. It's just very poor journalism and that's how you lose viewers.
Do you believe that five people were shot dead in a newsroom, or do you feel you have to be an eyewitness for something to be called a fact? I would call it a fact because so may media outlets are releasing exactly the same info at the same time. If one outlet claims 6 people died then it may be developing news (one of the injured later died) or the incident has been misreported, by accident or design (and a retraction may need to be published). Nevertheless it's still a fact that at least 5 people were killed in a newsroom.
Then Jimmy turns to speculation ... Was it part of a movement to attack journalists; no Jimmy apparently it wasn't. Was it Trump not dealing with second amendment issues ... no absolute rubbish Jimmy; American's like to shoot places up for a variety of reasons; try to touch the 2nd amendment and the weapons manufacturers; NRA and parts of the permanent state and Republican party will undoubtedly go for you . Trying to link Trump to the actions of this man is called "scapegoating"; insisting the President sticks his head in the Lion's mouth (metaphorically) is so much nonsense, that it's worse than nonsense. It's clear Trump want's nothing to do with gun control, so what is Jimmy drumming on about?
It's what the msm have been trying to do with Russia "scapegoating" ... that, for want of a better term is "externalisation" (trying to blame outside entities for internal problems, caused internally). The argument seems to be Russia is quite corrupt (which it is); there is a lot of corruption in and around the America government (which there is); therefore the two must be linked. That would be a fallacious argument (invalid).
The two types of corruption are different; the beneficiaries of American corruption are almost always American citizens and I firmly believe the authors of "Russia-gate" need to be given a punishment that fits the crime, because they have waged a campaign to alter public perception and they have profited greatly from it (at the expense of society and international relations). Only as matters stand, the establishment will simply forgive each other and if a screw-up is particularly bad, you get sent on "gardening leave".
I'm convinced "Russia-gate" is "fake news"; suspect that the federal reserve is very low on physical Gold and that the numerous foreign wars are about: oil and natural resources, not for any humanitarian reason. There are some of the myths the msm are trying to perpetuate.
So sure, Jimmy is free to trash his own show, but trying to revive a dead
duck (gun control); guessing wildly after a tragedy is: unhelpful; potentially misleading and shows a lack of respect for the dead; trying to link this to Trump appears dishonest to me (there I've said it).
* yet some of the msm translated that into some kind of a call to arms*
... but they actually did. What some in the msm were doing was using what are called (in the UK) "weasel words". These days the terms: "might"; "could"; "possibly" ... even "tomorrow", have been degraded by the msm. One type of "weasel words" is when a figure of authority says, "public service workers got more money this year, they got a 1% rise". On the surface that's a true statement, but if the inflation rate is 5% they are actually worse off because they can't buy as much. Weasel words!
Actually Trump said what he said ... something like "I'll leave that to the 2nd amendment folks" (don't quote me on that). Anything further is an interpretation or translation. When did the msm start knowing what other people might, or might not do? Can we accept that the msm is telepathic, of course not, actually what they were doing was suggesting a possible course of action; giving people ideas ... it's another version of weasel words ... it's the "let's you and him fight" game.
Easy enough to stop this, ridicule over a balance sheet error; a "cease and desist" (incitement to riot) for the second.
However I view both as intentional acts of deception; a misreading or mismanagement of fact and those whose employ this (even once) lose a lot of credibility (self inflicted). By the way interpretation isn't factual re-reporting, it's now opinion. Sure people are entitled to their opinion, it's just if it starts a riot they must take responsibility.
There is a reason to accept information from the likes of the Financial Times" at face value, because their livelihood depends on being as accurate as possible; only they are reporting on a dynamic (moving) situation so they are always playing catch-up. A hard copy end of day list of stock prices, is useful enough for those dabbling in the stock market, but as I told you; there are some who are inside the system; they deal in microseconds; they can't lose (unless spoofed) so for them the Times" is just a historical document. I just used the phrase "utter stupidity" because you described an issue of trust in those terms. This may come down to what you are prepared to trust or when you would trust something, but since I consider money to be an abstract concept (just a token used to simplify the exchange of goods and services); therefore money isn't real (it's just an understanding based on trust) so possibly the Financial Times might be better described as an accurate representation of a fantasy world. It's trustworthy in that respect (imo).
I gave you an example of a headline that wasn't a conclusion (anything with a question mark) I'm talking about: content; context and the presentation of a conclusion in the headline; not the matter of how articles are listed or categorised within a data-base.
See, there you go again; having a go. It might be an invitation to study bears and their feeding habits, particularly before venturing into bear country; but between me and you I didn't understand word one of you analogy. I don't mind discussing pure logic, but that's an abstract concept too. Maybe you might give that one another go; but I don't need any advice from you as to what I should and shouldn't do; it's not even very good advice and I suspect you are actually describing yourself. I'll leave you to follow your own advice while I look for an article that is an example of fake news, if that's okay with you?
1
-
I was given factual information; therefore it's fact based news. "France will win the world cup" isn't a fact (yet) therefore it's opinion based.
If I'm told that there's a fire (by fire alarm) then I have to follow a procedure and verify if it is indeed a fire; but if a work colleague tells me there is a fire and it's out of control; then I call the fire brigade. It's a waste of valuable time seeking further evidence, besides I'm inferring my colleague is untrustworthy; if something is on fire it's on fire (and that's a fact regardless of what people say about it). The treatment of fact in the social realm is different from the treatment of fact in empirical science (which needs to be independently verified. The fire is a fire whether I observe it or not.
Jimmy is a journalist; of the five types he's doing two.
At least three different media outlets reported five dead (two of them before Jimmy's show was published); one claimed at least five dead. It's fairly simple to determine if people are dead in matters like this; the authorities will give the numbers, but usually not the names. Of course a newspaper will report 5 dead, it's a fact; not a claim after an official announcement. Check the headline above "Breaking: Gunman Kills 5 Inside Maryland Newsroom" ... it's being presented as established fact.
I'm convinced "Russia-gate" is "fake news"
.... that's because you're not understanding precise language,
Again you are just taking utter rubbish (what do you know about what I understand? Nothing that's what!)
No it's because of lack of evidence; so if you've got hard evidence then present it. What Clinton is trying to convince people about is that America is so weak another country can choose the President and I'm sure she's a liar. CNN even try the "since Russia hacked the election .... " ruse, but repetition won't save them as there needs to be conclusive evidence before a conviction. Has anyone been convicted yet? No.
When did the msm start knowing what other people might, or might not do? " they're asking people, that's what reporters do". Not in this instance, or they would quote someone directly (that's what reporters do); suggesting people might take the law into their own hands is what the media outlet is doing.
I don't know how courts view medical malpractice, but that would be done on a case by case basis. With the Financial Times, it's more than their reputation; if they are found to be fabricating information there is no reason for them to be.
"These days the terms: "might"; "could"; "possibly" ... even "tomorrow", have been degraded by the msm."
Oh yes they have; they are used to predict doom and gloom ... when the expression "I guess" is what they really mean. Along the lines of, if Trump gets elected the sky might fall. Shame you didn't spot their cheap trick.
"A question mark in a news headline means that the conclusion of the source being true is an uncertainty" ... no it may simply mean that the headline is in the form of a question.
You know what you know and I know what I know, so what? (but you don't know what I know ... I can't indulge your fantasy). Besides that your language wasn't precise, it was incomprehensible; which is why I asked you to restated it.
Of course I lack understanding ... but to be precise: it's your use of English that I don't understand from time to time; you don't seem able to distinguish fact from opinion and you apparently don't understand what constitutes a fact in the first place. Do you understand that?
1
-
1
-
If an event takes place in the physical world (or what some around here wish to call reality), like one tower of the WTC collapsing the other on fire, news is conveyed, in various mediums to others ... let's call this second hand news. This "second hand news" is either true or false, because it's about an event that either happened or didn't. If the information (I got) was an accurate description of the event, then it is fact based. I may want to get a second opinion, if I'm not in Lower Manhattan at the time, but again there is no escaping the event happened and it's only a matter of time until the correct information gets to me. There are plenty of ways that the information I was given (at that time) could be false; everything from a candid camera stunt to a genuine mistake; but apart from a genuine mistake; everything else is "fake news".
Now that's a rough interpretation of "fake news" by the Collins dictionary definition and still within it; the concept of a "genuine mistake" might be one of these things that the closer you look the less you see; so I mean an honest mistake as opposed to a dishonest mistake. No need to be too precise about this (it involves people); sometimes mistakes happen but it those with malice aforethought that I think must be rounded up and put in a nice retirement home. If one news source continued to deny the attack, or even refused to cover the story; or the government: federal; state or local order a news blackout that's (in my book) three kinds of "fake news".
In the empirical realm, the buildings eventually collapsed. Those persisting in denying an obvious fact must (and would in this example) be viewed with suspicion; of course it's impossible for the media not to cover this breaking news (one of the main reasons I don't believe various conspiracy theories here) and so it's not a good example of censorship (government or otherwise) either, I've never been comfortable with a marble and a cannon ball falling a the same rate (I guess buildings do too); those expressing suspicion that the towers fell at the speed of gravity. I'd consider that to be an honest mistake. In the fact based empirical realm that's how it works, but in the social ream it doesn't look correct to me either, but that's my problem and I have to deal with it.
So anyone who expresses concern with the way physical reality works has my sympathy but it's not open to negotiation. In the social realm the quality of information isn't held to such high standards, some terms are used differently. Those trying to profit from confusing Energy as in E=mc^2 with the energy bar they are pushing; including a cartoon of a smiling Albert Einstein giving a thumbs up, as a mild (abstract) example (I'm sure there's been worse) but in my opinion horsewhipping is too good for people like that.
In the abstract realm, the realm of imagination; there is another form of reality. I can only speak for myself; but since I'm the master of the universe here I can call anything a fact, build structures and indulge in fantasy. If I speak about any of it, then it's up to the other individual to decided if that is the truth or not. In this realm that problem doesn't even exist (if I'm honest with myself). No peer pressure either, so it's all territorial morality. Since I can have fun in this realm, let's say I just granted you (the reader) the power of telepathy and you can exactly read my thoughts. Don't worry it wears off. I'm not trying to offer blue or red tablets like in the matrix; there is nothing to win (money is elsewhere for the time being) and I can abandon any construction, at no cost to the taxpayer by just wiping the slate clean.
So the lady in the chocolate shop is a truth-teller; she didn't add to what she knew and if I was in Russia and found I was shortchanged it would have made me laugh. I'll cut to the chase; the smartest man in America at that time was the guy who ordered all aircraft grounded on 9/11. He took out all the misinformation at one time and left the answer. All this misinformation was an honest mistake, but it was (for a million reasons) getting in the way.
It's the dishonest mistakes; like trying to blame the wrong person or source but in reality either the American government are out to get it's own people or we all just witnessed psychological warfare. I had ruled out an "act of god" on hearing the news of 9/11; at the time I was thinking okay either she's mad or there are some bad people, who?
Since every channel seemed to be covering it and kept covering it; that was very damaging but I'm not blaming the media this time. It was irresistible.
With groups like this in the world I think we don't even appear on their monopoly board. I don't know how they think, but they do exist.
Jimmy rapping on about Trump; I'll settle for, it's a bit like "fake news" as the OP opined. For some hearing a name being said over and over again is like that 9/11 effect all over again. In my opinion Trump is in on this game, but I've watched a lot of stage magic and I hate bad magic. I don't think Trump has been connected to 9/11 (yet), the health care issue wasn't his making, guns (we've got plenty thx).
I'm more interested in who's pulling the strings, I know their objective.
Trump guns yadda yadda
1
-
Fact based remember? If the event occurred, it doesn't matter if I know about it, or not; it's still a fact (the event occurred). If you look at the stars in the night sky, the information (the light from them) can be millions of years old; some of them will have already gone supernova, but that information hasn't reached Earth yet ... the source of some of these points of light in the sky died out before humanity was living in caves, but I don't consider that fake news, just information that hasn't reached us yet.
Let me move from the empirical realm to the social realm; I'll leave the WTC and events of 9/11 (or 11/9 in Europe) as a binary outcome (perpetrators either came from inside or outside America and they succeeded in their objective of destroying the WTC). I'll tell you a story which contains real people and how they handled information; then we can look for the fake news. If you have a blank page in front of you (to keep any notes you like) here is the story...
England was at war with France; there was going to be a decisive battle (between Napoleon and Wellington) and the London stock exchange was in a state of high anxiety. If France won (Napoleon's army) then there would be: war reparations; French conditions (for surrender) and the London stock market would likely crash. While if England won (Wellington's army, in France) then the opposite would happen: France pays war reparations, have to buy England's manufacturing (for example) and the London stock market would boom. There was a broker in the London stock exchange called Lloyd, who always stood at the same place, by the pillar, from where he bought and sold shares. At that time it took about a week to send a letter from France to England. You needed someone with all the skills of the modern pentathlon, to ride through war-torn France, cross the English channel, pick up a fresh horse at Dover and get this news to London (probably to the government first, who would send a runner to the London exchange).
The day after the battle of Waterloo
On that day Lloyd appears at his usual place and starts selling shares; he's selling for what he can get (even taking a few financial "hits"). Lloyd's reputation is that he's well informed, it looks like he's: "clearing his books"; "consolidating his position"; it looks like he knows something! After he dumped all his share holdings it caused a panic in the market; share prices dropped like a stone, as there was a rush to sell, and it crashed the market ... then a few days later, news arrived; England won; Wellington is a national hero ... and stock prices boomed.
There is definitely "fake news" in there somewhere; can you find it?
I'll move (us) to the abstract realm (no ... lol it's not open to negotiation; but you always have the off switch; you can change the channel). While you are considering the above for fakery; I'll indulge myself in pure fantasy, primarily for my entertainment; I'd describe Lloyd (the real one) as a "rational magician"; I taken some artistic license with this story...
Having travelled back in time and established myself as Lloyd, the broker by the pillar what others don't know is that it's not just me; I work with a team. One of the team keeps carrier pigeons fit and healthy for me; another is currently in France (with three of my pigeons) awaiting the outcome of "The battle of Waterloo" (as it came to be known); one is a banker (I just offered him generous percentages on some short term loans, he's on my team, so of course he agreed and he'll get a bonus for making the bank easy money); the rest of my team are all in place at the London Stock Exchange (LSE). News arrives late in the trading day (I don't actually know; but it's my story); it's too late; I'm standing in the LSE with my pigeon fancier friend and a wax sealed capsule containing what I would call "a logic bomb" (bombshell info). Business is being conducted around me as usual; I could change that by saying joy is us Wellington won(!!!); but with an hour until close I'm not about to do that.
I tell my broker confederates it's 9 a.m sharp tomorrow; take my pigeon fancier friend back to destroy all the messages, take him and friends to dinner and I don't sleep much that night. Luckily no-one else has a carrier pigeon network, i know that because all is normal at start of trade as I start selling my holdings ... I don't want to tell lies, but if I sell to broker that I know doesn't like me, I might say, "just because it's you", as I take a bath on the price. Panic develops I've sold; everybody selling, except my confederates. They won't double cross me because they only know to buy; they are helping me place a huge bet on the result, but it's at my risk. At the end of the full day they bought shares at pennies on the pound (them and that chap with the notes, who followed our every move).
That must have been some night (don't remember it) and the next couple of days too. I have huge stock holdings (others were glad to give me); massive debt to a bank (at 10%) ... but I've enough left over to form a bank once news arrives. I go in the next day, mention I'll be on holiday for a couple of weeks, leaving early must go to the bank. Easy meeting, I ask them, "how much would you like to know the result of the Battle of Waterloo?".
Admittedly info now travels at the speed of light; not by horse. Would I really have done, what Lloyd did; I like to think so (and can!). If we are looking for people to blame; I don't think Lloyd can be blamed, a modern interpretation would be he acted "within the law", but perhaps not in "the spirit of the law" (and you can believe that if you want). I don't know if others had pigeon post capability, yet instead did the obvious thing of simply buying shares knowing they'd go up; if Lloyd's reputation (of somehow being in the know) was rock solid, they'd likely be wiped out before the boom; so it's best I go on holiday ... see!?
I don't think I have time to deal with all the individual points and objections you raise so maybe we discuss this holistically and try to decide what's what in the case of Lloyd and the LSE. I don't know what happened on the day; or care to know that much more about "invisible banking" and I can't claim to know how others think (only see what they did, or do). What individuals say, doesn't have to be the truth but I believe actions speak louder than words. I won't describe my actions (as Lloyd, the time-traveller) as bad or good; or dwell on what could have gone wrong; I don't even know the character of the man, I'm just interested in how reality works. As I've said, I believe there are three forms of reality; I'm not about to choose the one I like the best, I can be the "master of the universe" in the abstract realm; but Lloyd became one in the social realm and it took some work to do that. I'm confident there are individuals like Lloyd walking amongst us; could have been Lloyd any number of times if I had "inside information", but I don't want to own a bank. I'm just looking for those with criminal intent that are trying to distort information to profit at the expense of the country. I don't think of it in terms of groups or individuals out to get me, more like who ended up with the $21.2 Trillion. I'd just like to know who "they" are.
On the subject of gravity; yes it does depend on the model; but it also depends on whether it's been talked about by laymen or theoretical physics majors and I'll settle for 9.8 m/s (per second) near the Earth's surface minus wind resistance). I'll pass on the theory of gravitational waves, or particles; for me it's an accelerating force in the WTC context and terminal velocity to be around 120 mph. The point is it fell down. It's entirely my problem if I like to live in the world of cartoon physics (where everything falls faster than an anvil); maybe it's just bad 60's sci-fi but I've seen articles where "light years" are called a speed rather than a distance, so it seems I'm not the only one that doesn't happily accept some of physical reality. I think the WTC fell straight down is a design feature for demolishing tall buildings in built up areas; but that's a flat out guess.
PS I'll be about until the 12th; then fzzzt I'll be gone.
1
-
I'm talking about things that are a fact whether I know about them or not, when it comes to the WTC scenario. Are you denying the information I received was incorrect?
Asking why I would accept such information at face value, particularly, from a stranger is another matter; maybe it's because I'm one of the 3% of people who can determine if others believe they are speaking the truth. I'm not claiming I am, just saying the information was factual.
The story I told you could be full of "fake news": I may have invented the whole thing; or not the exact story properly; or someone else might have embellished it (for example Dumas's story "The Three musketeers" was based on real people who almost certainly never met. I can get to that later.
The reason I don't lie (as Lloyd) on the day after the battle is I don't need to lie, but I can't deny that I'm trying to create a false impression. I'm not directly telling others what do, or what to think; but I'm trying to alter the perception of others. I'm not compelled to reveal the answer but fortunes will rise or fall on the result. Those party to this information might not get wiped out by simply buying shares and holding onto them through the crash (unless there's a margin call at the end of the day they can't meet ... the fact Wellington won is days away from reaching London, officially nobody knows ... except Lloyd).
I don't know for sure if others knew the result early, or that there are people like Lloyd today who about to exploit a situation at 9am sharp. That doesn't in any way alter what happened. Lloyd didn't lie by omission (he didn't say a word about the result); he simply behaved in a fashion that could be called fraudulent. It's not as simple as saying I took that lie for a fact; Lloyd depended on others misinterpreting his actions. His reputation spoke for itself (at least up until then). Believing in reputation is not "fake news" of it's self, but when a security officer robbed four London casinos on one night, just by walking off with the money, that was because he was viewed as honest until that day. I don't think Lloyd is being honest, rather he's laying a trap.
Everyone can be fooled; but it's not so easy to rip-off an honest man. It's nothing much to do with stupidity although the Nigerian General scam is known to intentionally employ poor grammar to weed out those who will see through it eventually. The point I'm trying to make is that the American public is being fooled and on such a large scale it's perhaps too big to see clearly. Have you an explanation for where $21,200,000,000,000 went or an idea of the interest being charged on it?
It's fine to talk about critical thinking, but if the initial information is incorrect then it's not much use.
"omg, it's not 9.8 m/s, it's 9.8 m/s^2" then why did you bother writing it? I wrote 9.8 m/s (per second) which is the same as 9.8 m/s^2 and as I told you it was acceleration first, you don't need to tell me. It's not my doing that this value is commonly known as the speed of gravity, but ask around and see for yourself.
Did I cover all the points (?), I think so; but no I don't believe Lloyd is completely innocent; he created a panic by encouraging others to believe the opposite of what actually happened. Selling shares, that he knew would soon rise in price was not a honest course of action and he employed a team but pretended to act as an individual. The colluded to affect the market (temporarily); it was an illusion they used and whatever they gained someone else lost.
Critical thinking is not much use when faced with something new for the first time; not enough info and it seems clear to me that the American people are being swindled at this time, all to make a select few richer than Lloyd at the expense of others.
1
-
Are you denying the information I received was incorrect? nope
Then it was fact based.
It's irrelevant when I got corroborating evidence (about 5 minutes later); the fact was and is, one tower had fallen (and that's a fact!)
you do know that if someone believes that something is true it doesn't mean that it's fact, right?
you do know that if someone believes that something is true it doesn't mean that it's fact Yes; that's why I included the term "believe" in that sentence.
you don't know what he based his opinion on It was a she (as I said) and the statement was based on fact. It's not an opinion (opinion: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge). The statement she was based on fact.
Lloyd depended on others misinterpreting his actions there was no reason to misinterpret anything
Oh yes there was. The shares the brokers held will either boom, or bust, once news of the result of the battle arrives. A broker holding a lot of shares will either be a millionaire, or a pauper, once news arrives. This is a volatile situation and now one of the brokers starts dumping shares on the market. Not just any broker: Lloyd is established and has a reputation for being "in the know" and he clearly wants out. What are you (as a broker) going to do?
I've revealed Lloyd's secret (he has a faster information network than surface mail ... so he's often ahead of the game); if Lloyd's trades regularly make good returns, one idea is simply to do what he does and let him do the thinking, but here he is selling everything, even at fire-sale prices.
Of course history records the result of the war (England 1 France 0) ; we know, Lloyd knows, but the other brokers don't know. To them it's a coin flip. Heads you live in a big mansion on Park Lane, Tails it's a cardboard box on Old Kent road ... want to play?
The fakery
If someone knows England won the war; the conventional approach is to buy shares and as many as possible. These shares will undoubtedly go up sharply in price once this fact reaches the market (LSE).
Lloyd doesn't do that and the moment he says sell, he is defying conventional logic and trying to spread misinformation. Had it not been such a crunch moment in English history, cashing in might cause a slight dip in prices; but it turns out Lloyd started the ball rolling....
He engineered a panic in the market; the further it went the more it became clear England must have lost the war (the market has spoken).
Only the market had been hoodwinked, it was wrong and all those penny shares Lloyd's team hoovered up now became worth pounds.
As I see it (opinion): Lloyd is real; England won the war ... both are facts; I've seen the story of Lloyd's dealings that day in a few places, so I believe it happened roughly as recorded. The difference between Lloyd and the brokers (that day) was that Lloyd was dealing in fact and they were dealing in opinion. The information Lloyd had isn't "fake information" (we know that); he probably knows that because he recognises the handwriting on the note.
He could have made a small fortune then and there with this fact; just buy (at any price, buy!); instead he sets out to spread misinformation. Now I usually give people the benefit of the doubt once; but not here, because it's clear he put some effort into this and he's behaving with premeditated malicious intent. Using his public persona; Lloyd who's "always in the know" isn't buying today he's clearing out. Do you want to be the last turkey in the shop?
He was spreading fake news; this was by action more than word; then conclusions were drawn on this false information. I don't regard Lloyd as innocent in this. He faked the others into dropping stock that was now worth a fortune.
Now I think about it; roughly the opposite of this happens in the movie "Trading Places". In that illusion: the fake news is the price will skyrocket, but the fact is the price will remain stable (they clear up on both sides of the deal; like Lloyd and his cronies).
Look, I spent around four years to qualify as an engineer; so you'll excuse me if I skip the gravity and algebra bit. When it comes to structural engineering I don't need to think in terms of what causes gravity: what it is; how it propagates or what makes it; I'm simply dealing in terms of effect. Gravity is inconvenient to me; it gets in the way of leaving the planet because we are stuck at the bottom of a gravity well; if there's a structural failure, in say the WTC, it will seal the fate of the structure. To me; the speed the towers fell at is immaterial. If they both fell at exactly the same speed or rate then I would assume it's from the same cause. Jessie Ventura puts forward the hypothesis it was a controlled demolition; I don't share his opinion. It may well look exactly like one to him (and he should know); but it looks like the central column failed as all of the floors were supported by this, it came down as one thing. I'd say air resistance negligible, it's a huge unsupported mass and once gravity (g) takes a second or two to overcome inertia, it's in free-fall. Maybe we should cut to the chase on this, do you think 9/11 was an inside job or an outside job?
Sure Lloyd obeyed the law; but perhaps not the spirit of the law. It's certainly of historical note, so something noteworthy happened. It's not his fault if others do what he does, but he conducted a sting operation.
Critical thinking is not much use when faced with something new for the first time to the contrary, that's when it shines
No not really; actually a lot of our useful discoveries are made by complete accident. I mean one company made a fortune from Viagra which was supposed to be a trial cure for heart trouble; easy to tell whose on the placebos in the drug trial.
No actually genius is often misunderstood and persecuted; we have a long history of that. I suppose it's because of lack of criteria on which to judge genius. If only half a dozen people in the world can read what Einstein wrote (or rather Maxwell wrote); so much for the wisdom of crowds. Critical thinking is fine with me if you have all the info; a clear objective in mind and some chance of achieving it. I find it helps to visualise a problem from various aspects; but for some problems you need two viewpoints simultaneously, but I'm not getting into trig at the moment.
No I'd say the American people are being swindled. So where is this $21.2 Trillion?
Is it not the case that the distributors of fake news, primarily want to cloud the issue; they insist on calling a right wing political party "the left"; to me that's like the Adam Smith Institute of NYC (a right wing think tank) misappropriating his name and works (he actually was a socialist, who believed the workers and state should profit from the success of a company). Clinton was actually really right wing, but the party has no right to be called "the left". If you don't think parking a supercomputer next to the New York Stock exchange is a bit suspect that's up to you; I was just surprised the government were in on it.
It's clear that people have tried to alter others decisions by: distributing false information; hoaxes and denying facts right up until they are jailed.
Fake news in the UN security council (poor information gathering; does she not know about pigeons?). The illusion only needs hold up until the war starts; luckily this category of illusions don't last long ... if you've the time to wait.
Hope I covered everything ... I'm just interested in who is doing it; with malice aforethought. I'm just hoping they've not got to Jimmy.
1
-
No that's not the point. The point is you can't deny an event happened in physical reality (if it actually happened); you could try but eventually reality will prevail. At that time it's a fact I'm given (one down; one on fire); it's an accurate description of events and it's news to me. So when does it stop becoming a fact? Really it's news that hasn't reached everybody yet, but it's spreading fast.
Are you saying it's my problem that I've been given news that is either true or false? I've already admitted if I'm not prepared to accept reality at face value then that is my problem, nevertheless at that time it was a fact; the information was accurate, it doesn't matter what I think about it.
I would mention people (these days) that jump to early conclusions; some are paid handsomely to jump to early conclusions; I've noticed that bad news travels fast, but maybe that experience is particular to me. Faced with such sensational news; I needed a second perspective (for my own reasons); I still found it hard to believe, but I knew where to find a magic box that received information almost instantly. I vaguely recall reasoning this was unlikely to be an act of god (as insurance companies might describe a natural disaster), but I didn't pass this information to anyone. By the way; I knew she was telling the truth, bet my life on a stranger(?). You'll have to take it from me; it wasn't just the words she said, it was how she said them. Anyway why would someone tell such a tale?
I told you already I don't claim to know what others believe; I can only decide on what they say and do. If their actions don't match their words, or they are already known to willingly lie then I would tend not to trust them. If we scale that up to the billion dollar scale then there are groups who have formed huge machines to: act as cheerleaders; attack competitors; or perhaps more worryingly act as second in a motion to war. This kind of fakery can range from pushing soap powder to something really deadly; millions has already been spent on this.
As for trusting strangers: i can only speak personally. I view people as essentially: good; intelligent and in the main just trying to get on with their lives. That is the base line and if someone: lies cheats or steals from me or other individuals then we part company. Ripping off corporations is another matter, it shouldn't be all one way.
No it's simply because there was no reason to lie. In other words what is an objective (for her); just think it through. it has to be a fact (and we know it's fact based too, since we are in the future).
Well it is and it isn't a good thing to have a reputation; but that's a matter of trust (or lack of). I agree the laws and conduct of people can't really be relied on at times, but without a degree of trust; nothing (big) would be done. Yes it's not reasonable to expect people to behave consistently; some play the rules, or gamble on not being caught (risk reward). One reason pot is so strong these days (same penalty for all strengths, but the strong stuff sells for more). It would have taken years to build a reputation; months to set up and ensure there was a man on the spot. No; he hooked them and he reeled them in. Maybe it's true, that behind every great fortune there is a great crime? I've heard that said a few times.
I asked you a straight question, America has a national debt of around $21 trillion; where did it go? or in other words ... Since the taxpayer is paying for it; what did the tax payer get in return?
I'm guessing if you gave me $21 Trillion I could colonise Mars; or install a mass accelerator on the Moon, plus a telescope on the dark side of the Moon too ... it's a fantastic sum of money.
Still there's money to bump up the military budget by hundred's of billions. That really doesn't add up.
The public have been swindled and as far as I can see "they" won.
The UN clearly weren't impressed with mocked up photos. However trying to show pictures of dead children while actually bombing a country only shows me she lacks self awareness, or she's a monster.
it's only clouded to you, which is why you're calling it fake news
Not so; I've demonstrated where information has been distributed that is not only false; but it is willingly distributed; in some cases with malice aforethought. Clouding issues is just a minor side-effect; there are always breaks in the clouds; no the really serious stuff is providing false values, because that affects people's ability to make accurate value judgements; lack of information (news blackouts); calling the enemy a short fat guy with funny haircut ... Sure people assume the role of speaking out; claiming they represent something they don't and that is one kind of fake news;
Did you really not notice the smear campaigns last election; heavy on insult; light on policy; I believe that was intentional.
$21 Trillion and rising fast ...
The biggest howler Clinton made was claiming Trump got the nuke trigger all to himself when she must know that simply a lie.
Since we are all stuck with Trump, the cleverest question he asked (imo) was when he asked the at his security briefing "Why can't America use nukes?" If you want to know the answer it's classified. I fail to see how you can't see the malicious intent behind intentional distribution of misinformation; the repetition of allegations without proof and obvious chicanery? I don't think I'm particularly special; others have noticed this too and pointed out similarities. In style and content; also there are clips here where you can see what politicians look like when they lie.
Sometimes I think you might be a computer; or don't recognise occult knowledge or running block for the show.
I'd settle for $10 Trillion accounted for; can't say fairer than that.
1
-
As I said (at least twice): facts in the Empirical realm are facts whether humans observe them or not. As the collapse of the WTC tower was a scientific (and engineering) fact and the information given to me was accurate; that's fact based journalism. Had the messenger told me that maybe the second tower will fall too; that's moved it to opinion based. Although the second tower fell later, it's not a fact at that time, it's speculation. It's also irrelevant what I know, or don't know. It's a fact that the WTC tower collapsed. In other words that is reality and if individuals don't or won't accept physical reality then that is entirely their problem.
You clearly don't understand the difference between fact and opinion (and that imo is the easy bit).
I take it as fact that people can believe what they want; it does not follow that what they believe is true or a fact. They may believe something that is factually incorrect, in which case they may draw conclusions that are false or inaccurate. I can't even be sure if what an individual says they believe is the truth; that's how shaky things are in the social realm. Also any law, that isn't a prohibition, will be good for some and not so good for others. So in the social realm what's true for one individual may not be true for another. However if someone travels to NYC to visit the Twin Towers, it doesn't matter what they believe the Twin Towers don't exist any more and that's a fact! I simply included the term "believe" in a sentence with people in it because belief and fact are not always the same thing. No need to make a big thing of it; I can say what people said; or did; but I can't claim I exactly know what people believe.
The statement she was based on fact you didn't know that at the time
I agree the statement she made was news (rather shocking news I felt); it doesn't matter what I think about it; it is still a fact. I chose to find another perspective, for reasons of my own (mainly I don't want to spread misinformation). If I can't find any then at least I'll have an amusing dinner table story ... a person in a shop said the craziest thing to me, today (my words). If it's occupying a dozen channels, then that is corroborating evidence of an established fact. That's how it works.
Lloyd took the LSE for so much money he could have bought Buckingham Palace. Had he behaved conventionally, he could easily live on Park Lane; but he set things up to scoop the pot. This is not only because he has advance information, it's because (for want of a better expression) he's inside the machine. So not only does he have insiders info ... which would net him a tidy profit; now he is going to tamper with the people population the machine (in this case the LSE brokers). We all must know by now he did it intentionally; he was playing on people's fears ... history was being writ; a coin flip on who is rich and who is poor to these brokers waiting for news.
Let me shorten this: I know what Lloyd did; I know how and why he did it; it's clear fake news was his weapon, he was fear-mongering and once that took hold it changed the opinion of the market into one of panic selling. It was an elaborate hoax and had the brokers ignored Lloyd's fire sale, his team would have picked up these shares and more as the market will boom in a day or two; once fact replaces opinion. You may view Lloyd's actions as above board, but if I was Lloyd after I'd collected all the shares from my team; I'd tell them when their bonus arrives; I'd pay back the bank I borrowed money from probably in their own shares once they go up in value, but I'd leave London. Once the news hits London, "Wellington Triumphant!" there will be a boom in the market and some brokers will know they got duped. No there is fake news in that story; you can take my word for that.
I don't need to think that's the impression you seem to give
I can't take your word for that.
Still wondering where all the money went?
I'm keen on marginal utility (what else could $21.2 Trillion be better spent?). Only I'd need to know what it actually got spent on, in order to compare and contrast. A third of it got wasted on things that didn't work; fine what's $7 Trillion to me? Nothing. No use crying over spilled milk either, I think the money resides in offshore tax havens I just wonder how it got there? So $15 Trillion, I feel the people must know (because they'll be paying for it; unless it's war).
Is it not the case that the distributors of fake news, primarily want to cloud the issue it's only clouded to you, which is why you're calling it fake news
Not so; just because you can't see it (even after some examples, want more?) It clearly does exist and who knows what lies behind a smokescreen. That's the point of it.
Trump's type of smokescreen is ambiguity; Clinton's was to lie. Putin's is to back both sides (so nobody knows what the governments position is). This is one of these instances where I can't be argued out of ignoring the evidence of my own eyes (masses falling in a vacuum I'll just have to get used to); so really it's you that can't see the use of camouflage, or find it acceptable things aren't clear; or not even brought up in conversation?
It was "fake news" in the UN (re Syria) and if you don't trust a word the speaker is saying from the start; plus it's the same excuse as last time (who will save all those children we are bombing?!); plus it involves outpourings of emotive language (the tiny cold dead hand still clasping a teddy-bear ... sure Nikki, but why worry now? Albright said "50,000 kids dead is a price we had to pay". I found it disgusting to watch.
To claim you haven't seen any of this; I find that hard to accept.
I'll remind you that the Western msm published pictures of a BuK on a flatbed trailer; this was just after a Malaysian airways flight was shot down (on a route I've been on) over Ukraine. Some used this as evidence of a Russian unit fleeing the scene of the crime; it went viral.
Then some military buffs pointed out this picture was actually from the Georgian war (it was the insignia on the vehicles that decided it; I'm told). Turns out it was a stock photo and people jumped to their own conclusion; it was tough to turn the tide for those who knew the truth; it still pops up ... that Buk crossing the border, didn't you see the picture?
I just happen to be a fan of Victorian stage magic and I know illusion when I see it.
So "they" don't really want the matter of national debt on the news and "they" are not truth-tellers; they will put self interest before the interest of the country (if we knew what that was ... it's a secret); they are also as wealthy as Lloyd by now so should be easier to spot.
1
-
You just don't seem to get it ... I've been given a fact and it's up to me what I do with it; "one down, one on fire" is an accurate description of current events whether I believe that or not. Why I took the statement as fact is another matter entirely and clearly I can't be an idiot believing something that everyone should know is true; so it must be you for using the term idiot. It's not relevant what I think about this fact; if I try to deny it I'd look increasingly foolish, but I can't really pass on this information until I have corroborating evidence (it's against my moral code). Maybe you would like to offer a coherent reason why someone would say one down one on fire if it was a lie.
Perhaps you might like to think of it like this. News of an event is spreading out from the epicentre; it travels by various mediums, news of this kind of event is very hard to avoid. You have to start believing at some point or you are out of step with reality.
No I did not claim I was one of the 3% who can divine truth in others; if you read the wording I was careful not to make that claim, I just claimed that individuals like this do exist (fake news: misrepresentation; the "strawman argument). I already said I didn't directly equate belief with fact as people are free to believe in fantasy if they wish (fake news: persistent denial of a factual statement). Therefore your conclusion is based on two false premises (fake news: misinformation; intentional?). Keep it up; you're doing something right.
No I was just saying other information was being conveyed as well as the information contained in the words being said; also it was a pointless shaggy dog story otherwise and about there I start thinking, who did it?
I told you what Lloyd did; he gave every indication of England losing the war; started a panic in the market; crashed it; then picked up shares for pennies; fact was these shares were worth far more than when he started his sting. He encouraged others to accept fake news as real (judging by their odd action of now selling shares now worth a fortune).
If you don't think there's something a bit criminal about that, wait until it happens to you.
I told you what news was, it's new information. I think it's clear that information can change things; that the market can get things wrong (with a bit of help) and that is what is happening at the moment. With so much money sloshing about in the system; it's ruined the concept of "price discovery" as groups try to legitimise "credit default swaps" by buying anything non perishable; the Gold fix is apparently fixed (rigged); key rates have been manipulated (LIBOR) which undermines the fabric of that structure. It looks like (along with money) nothing is real in the markets at the moment.
Jumping to conclusions, maybe that is what a lot of fake news is designed to do; it's to encourage others to arrive at conclusions based on faulty information?
If I claim that you are distributing poison deserts; the onus of proof is on me; the law is quite clear on this point, there are also penalties by tribal law. I could call this fake news, because it starts with a lie. It may start with a half lie ... "I heard him say he would" (hearsay)". Other methods are: misquoting; reading things into the words spoken or taking things out of context; I've seen them all employed before last election. Lies and abuse, being used to close down debate.
Still wondering where all the money went?
Yes, because you didn't tell me.
i didn't say invisible, i said clouded for you
So you can see it too?
you took it as fact and cried when you found out it was not, eh?
I don't understand what you are saying.
if you don't trust a word the speaker is saying from the start there is no reason to trust anyone
That is not a valid statement. People don't have to tell the truth; some are proven liars; it was a sad and desperate show, that reflected badly on America. I mean other countries would surely know it's really all about an oil pipeline (and they had to sit and watch her lie).
Did I say I believed everything that goes viral? I don't think I did. This kind of fake news, with the BuK picture) is putting something in the wrong place at the right time (so to speak). I don't recall the Western msm saying here is proof, but by choosing that picture (of a BuK on a low-loader under tarpaulin) when there were better pictures of a BuK, not partially covered, it showed "they" wanted to imply Russia had something to hide. You can draw your own conclusions.
A picture speaks a thousand words; haven't you heard that?
Never seen "The Falling Man"?
Yes I'm a huge fan of Victorian magic (and hoaxes). I've said if the objective is hidden, this doesn't inspire trust and I stand by that statement. However I exclude the trickery of stage illusion as it is for entertainment purposes and the audience consents to this when they buy a ticket to the show. I'll skip another mis-quote from you and say that it doesn't matter what you think about how much a true fan knows about a subject; you can never know.
So where did the $21.2 Trillion go?
How do you answer Trumps question, "why can't America use nukes?"
Is this not an accurate comment on Jimmy's show this edition?
" Really you should wait for some facts to come in before coming up with theories on motives . The shooter had an defamation suit against the paper in 2012. This guy had a problem with this paper long before anyone thought a president Trump was even possible." (John o)
1
-
No I was given factual information; a statement about physical reality that was true at that time (whether I believe it or not). By your reasoning a newsreader on the radio is just giving opinions.
I'm not taking "everything" as fact (fake news: misrepresentation; hyperbole); I was presented with a statement that was either true or false; it was true (whether I accept that information was true or not); therefore it's fact based.
Why I took the statement as fact is another matter entirely
Keeping in mind that the information, that I'm now party to, is a fact whether I believe it or not; I'm faced with two main options. It's either true that the WTC is under attack; or it's false. There are many more ways for it to be false than true, but it wasn't just the words; I was picking up other information and the only way I can explain this is you had to be there at the time.
I can't be an idiot believing something that everyone should know is true Well your interpretation is one way of putting it, but what I actually meant was: the twin towers both collapsed; news of that fact is spreading out (or going around the world if you prefer), trying to deny a plain fact means you look more idiotic; than simply taking something into consideration and trying to qualify it. The statement is true or false, there is no room for opinion (yet).... the Who did it? bit came later. What is the motivation to lie, was really what I meant.
Pure logic is never foolish
Here you make a category error. Emotive terms do not feature in the Empirical realm (in paradigms there is no emotional content, or context)
... the Universe not only doesn't care, or need to care; the term "care" doesn't even appear in it's lexicon.
It may be regarded, by some, as foolish if the first premise in an argument is, "if all Lions are square", yet it is still possible to form a valid argument. It's even possible to start with two false premises and reach a true conclusion. Pure logic is simply an analytical method and seems to obey the unwritten rule garbage in/ garbage out (GIGO).
There are indeed lots of reasons, why the statement may be false; but I'd rule out insanity (looks like a shop assistant); medication or temporary insanity (sounds like a shop assistant); it's not April fool's day (it's 9/11) so it's down to misleading (tainted) or false info; somewhere in the communication chain. That's quite a big mistake to make, although human error has caused calamities; if an established media outlet distributed that "fake news" I'm not sure of the law, but it might be called incitement to riot. The last attack didn't demolish one tower, so that's new; it's certainly sensational so could be "fake news"; looking back I can confirm bad news does indeed travel fast; but if I remember correctly I couldn't see how a short information chain could get it that wrong. Anyway that Schrodinger's cat paradox resolved itself in about 5 minutes ... but when do you start believing this news from the shop assistant?
Lloyd and my thinking?
My thinking isn't important, it's what others thought on the day; because I already know what Lloyd is attempting to do and how he came to be in a position to do it. What you describe as my reasoning, is actually the reasoning of others that day; as seen by their subsequent actions. I think it's fair to say they believed Lloyd's reputation. As Lloyd operated his own information network, he was ahead of the game because he was faster. A run of minor successes would soon prove it's not just luck; h he knows something; it's usually foreign affairs (Europe) too. Not only would another broker look foolish if the bottom fell out of the market and he simply watched it happen; but he and his clients would go broke financially. Now the man in the know starts selling, still selling as the prices drop ... it might have been greed that sparked it, or fear; but it was a a result of: misinformation; omitting to mention an established fact and months, maybe even years, of work. The only bit I'm concerned about is was it an honest mistake or was there intent to defraud? I know it's fake news he was dealing in, as he had the truth in his pocket.
So to me, despite his ingenuity; he is an example of the enemy.
I should be clear by the way; I don't distribute fake news to millions of people; some of the msm have done that. So Lloyd was an honest man for years until one day he became a crook ... is he a crook? I guess so; you f*ck one sheep??.
I'm more interest in the mechanisms of illusion. Lloyd's only needed to last a day; but $21.2 Trillion is there a Lloyd in the room?
I'm going to have to call it a day, but I might send you an example of fake news yet.
1
-
1