"Currants Bw..."

[Niall_Quinn]

I did read it. I’m not really sure how to respond.
I mean, my post sort of was a response not to that specific post, more to a bunch of them.
I’m not worried about you, but I’m not clear what you’re getting out of the “old man yells at cloud” stuff. It doesn’t seem to be doing you much good

So now you have read it you can either think about it, or ignore it and continue trying to shoot the messenger by unsubtle means which I'm guessing you think are subtle. I told you what will be happening with the mainstream media. Perhaps you find that useful to know, perhaps you don't. There's no right or wrong approach to this, no trick.

[Letters]

continue trying to shoot the messenger by unsubtle means which I'm guessing you think are subtle.

I think you infer malicious motives too much when none exist. It's why you get so much stuff wrong. I have explained this to you before, with examples.

I told you what will be happening with the mainstream media.

You also told me about the upcoming marshal law, the curfews and checkpoints, the army on the streets. You see the problem?
And the reason you got that all wrong is the same reason I gave above, combined with a deep distrust of authority.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think you infer malicious motives too much when none exist. It's why you get so much stuff wrong. I have explained this to you before, with examples.


You also told me about the upcoming marshal law, the curfews and checkpoints, the army on the streets. You see the problem?
And the reason you got that all wrong is the same reason I gave above, combined with a deep distrust of authority.

Assuming my accurate assessment of your motivation is incorrect, why are you responding? Why do you need what I said to be wrong and shown to be wrong (albeit through character assassination rather than focus on the issue), especially as I'm wrong all the time?

Are you like one of these new fact checking services that never actually discusses the facts? Irony is, you'll be out of a job soon for the very reasons I gave.

[Letters]

Assuming my accurate assessment of your motivation is incorrect, why are you responding?

I mean. It's a messageboard. I reply to things I want to respond to. Things I'm interested in, often things I diagree with and want to challenge or discuss.
In this instance, I'm genuinely interested. You spend a lot of time wringing your hands about how we're all doomed. As I said you're either
1) Wrong - in which case you're wasting a lot of time worrying about it or
2) Correct - in which case you're still wasting your time, unless you think there's anything you can do to stop it.

I'm just not sure what you're getting out of dwelling on this stuff. Is it helping your mental state?

Why do you need what I said to be wrong and shown to be wrong

I don't need you to be wrong. Obviously I hope you're wrong when you predict things like marshal law, checkpoints and curfews. Who wants that?
And thankfully you were wrong about those things. Aren't you pleased about that? Did you want curfews and marshal law?

albeit through character assassination rather than focus on the issue

It's not character assassination to say that you infer malicious motives all the time or that you have a deep distrust of authority. Both of those things are evident in many of your posts

especially as I'm wrong all the time?

I don't think you're wrong all the time. But you were wrong about some of the things I mentioned above. I regard that as a good thing.

Are you like one of these new fact checking services that never actually discusses the facts?

Well, you rarely present facts or provide sources.

Irony is, you'll be out of a job soon for the very reasons I gave.

Nah. I'm too old for that. The younger generation maybe, but I'm sceptical about how much AI will actually replace. Some things, certainly, and that's already happening. But previous revolutions in automation have simply created other jobs and opportunities. There are legitimate concerns here but your mind always goes to the darkest places with stuff like this. Which leads us back to the two options I presented above.

[Niall_Quinn]

Who are you talking to Letters? Me, or some sort of fan base? You say you are interested in things but then conclude that no matter what's happening nobody can do anything so why worry. That doesn't signify interest at all, it's the opposite. Then you play your usual diversionary trick of focusing on an unrelated issue, claiming I was wrong about it, then extrapolating to cast doubt no matter what the issue. That's a basic propaganda technique. So when you say your intent is not malicious, well once again the opposite is true. Next you try to reinforce this propaganda by making a sweeping claims that facts and sources are hardly provided to support the issues you'd rather I not talk about. This despite official government documents, detailed videos, links to interviews, analysis. And the confirmed facts that usually emerge well after the event and suddenly become accepted as if there was never a concerted effort to shut discussion down when such facts were most vital. What you actually mean is I don't provide links to the propaganda sources you approve of, which you generally provide anyway so it's not like you have missed out. It doesn't matter how many times those approved sources can be demonstrated as having lied to you, that's all dismissed as an innocent mistake, regardless of the unwavering consistency. You have a dismissal for everything, designed to avoid the causes at all costs and pick through the symptoms one item at a time carefully avoiding all connection. And you are doing it here again.

I come on and say here's a bit of news. The mainstream media is kind of fucked.

And you come on and say I'm mentally afflicted, I think troops are marching up and down your street and shut up because you can't do anything about it.

Fair enough? That's what it says in the posts above.

But what about the actual issue Letters? If you are so interested the do you have any contribution on that? Hardly worth it though, because nobody can do anything, right?

Lightweight. Go away.

[Letters]

Who are you talking to Letters? Me, or some sort of fan base?

You. I don't really feel I have a fan base. There's about 10 people on here these days. I'm sure some of them like me, some of them don't.
I don't go out of my way to either be offensive/unpopular or court popularity.

You say you are interested in things but then conclude that no matter what's happening nobody can do anything so why worry. That doesn't signify interest at all, it's the opposite.

Well, no. Those aren't opposites. There are levels of interest. I can take an interest in world events without dwelling on the more negative ones, especially those which I can't change.
I'm interested in and concerned about the situation in Ukraine. But I have zero power to change it.
My nephew's obsession with it and hand wringing about impending nuclear destruction seemed unhelpful. It didn't seem to help his mental state.

Then you play your usual diversionary trick of focusing on an unrelated issue, claiming I was wrong about it, then extrapolating to cast doubt no matter what the issue. That's a basic propaganda technique.

Again, calling it a "diversionary trick" is another example of you inferring some malicious motive where none exists. And it's somewhat ironic when I have asked you some straight questions which you have failed to answer.
I'm not claiming you were wrong. We've been through those posts many times so I won't do so again, but the things you said would happen didn't happen. There's no debate to be had about that.
It's like saying I'm "claiming" you were wrong about Utd finishing 10 points clear of us. I mean it's not a "claim", they just...didn't.
And it's not a "technique" at all. You're here telling us that <bad things> will happen. I'm merely pointing out that you have done that before and were wrong.
And sure, it doesn't mean you're wrong this time - as I said, you're not wrong about everything. But your continued rock solid confidence in your 20:20 foresight baffles me given your track record.
You don't even admit you were wrong about those things much less consider why.

So when you say your intent is not malicious, well once again the opposite is true.

This remains incorrect.
But doubling down on that assertion when you've been told it's incorrect does rather reinforce my point about your routinely inferring malicious intent from people when it doesn't exist.

Next you try to reinforce this propaganda by making a sweeping claims that facts and sources are hardly provided to support the issues you'd rather I not talk about. This despite official government documents, detailed videos, links to interviews, analysis.

None of those were provided in your post.

What you actually mean is I don't provide links to the propaganda sources you approve of, which you generally provide anyway so it's not like you have missed out.

No, I meant what I said. It would be interesting to see what you're looking at which has shaped your opinions. And sure, if the source is questionable then I'll point that out. You don't like me using the BBC as a source and you point that out, if I can demonstrate that your sources have a track record of lying then it's reasonable to point that out. I have done that before with Jimmy Dore, I broke down his lies in some detail. It all just bounced off you. You don't seem to have a problem with people lying to you if you agree with what they're saying
I've picked you up on this before but your definition of "propaganda" is largely things you don't agree with.

It doesn't matter how many times those approved sources can be demonstrated as having lied to you, that's all dismissed as an innocent mistake, regardless of the unwavering consistency.

Well, there are a couple of issues with that. One is the examples I've highlighted previously where you have declared BBC articles "fake news" when in fact they were entirely accurate.
The second is yes, sometimes the MSM report things which aren't incorrect. One of your favourite go to examples is the infamous WMD thing. But the MSM were merely reporting what was in a government dossier.
Now obviously screaming headlines like The Sun's "HE'S GOT 'EM, LET'S GET HIM!" aren't helpful but that's The Sun for you. Are you expecting the MSM to not report on that dossier at all until they have independently verified the contents. Is that even possible in real time? They don't have the resources of a state. But in time the lies in that dossier were eventually revealed and reported by the MSM.

You have a dismissal for everything, designed to avoid the causes at all costs and pick through the symptoms one item at a time carefully avoiding all connection. And you are doing it here again.

I'm not clear what you mean by that.

I come on and say here's a bit of news. The mainstream media is kind of fucked.

That isn't news. It was you speculating about where some of the AI tools being trialled are heading.

And you come on and say I'm mentally afflicted,

Incorrect. I said that you have a deep distrust of authority and you infer malicious intent far too easily.
Do you dispute those things?
Neither of those things are mental afflictions, they're just part of your worldview and the evidence for those two things is shown in many of your posts.

I think troops are marching up and down your street

No. But you did think that would happen during the Covid times. The army were in Birmingham handing out tests and you inferred from the fact they were in uniform that it was to "get us used to the presence of the army on our streets". It's another example of you seeing a piece of news and extrapolating it to extremes. I'd suggest that your distrust of authority and tendency to infer malicious intent are factors in why your mind went there.
You are doing the same here.

and shut up because you can't do anything about it.

Well, no. I didn't say shut up. But I do wonder what you're getting out of dwelling on stuff like this.

Fair enough? That's what it says in the posts above.

It doesn't. But the fact you think that is a good example of what I'm talking about.

But what about the actual issue Letters? If you are so interested the do you have any contribution on that? Hardly worth it though, because nobody can do anything, right?

I've addressed that above. There are some legitimate concerns with AI, but as I said there have been people wringing their hands about automation for centuries. We haven't all been automated out of jobs just yet.
My gut feeling is it's not going to happen any time soon, although someone I was talking to about this recently noted that AI is in its infancy, relatively speaking. Where will we be in 100 years? The only honest answer is "I don't know" but I'll be dead anyway so I'm not sure wasting any time worrying about it is in any way fruitful.

[Niall_Quinn]

Holy hell. All I was saying is you'll have robots writing your reality instead of stenographers. To warrant this sort of snow job though. Lucky it's me with the mental issues and not you.

[Mac76]

I wouldn't care if the army was on the streets tbh, if they stopped the anti-social behaviour

I remember at the Olympics when G4S couldn't fulfil the security contract and the army stepped in - they just walked around, vigilant but very relaxed

They weren't trying to boss anyone around like those playground bullies and sacked policemen from G4S would have - these guys are used to real danger, they can't be arsed with looking for trouble for the sake of it

[HCZ_Reborn]

It’s the principle though, the idea of Martial law is the last refuge of the scoundrel in terms of largely over hyped fears for safety and security.

The military supplanting awful private security forces for a one off event is one thing, for it to be a routine event…

It depends what constitutes anti social behaviour as well, we aren’t really in an epidemic of people stabbing each other in the street in fact there’s been a recent surge in the last year or two that’s completely consistent with the end of lockdown measures but overall violent crime has been falling for years.

There are of course things that need improving, whilst it’s definitely overstated one can’t help but feel that removing the pointless emphasis on arresting people for online crimes (including misgendering people) might free up resources for maintaining a standard level of police presence.

Ultimately the police tend to come down heavy on these non offences because it’s far easier for them than doing the leg work to bust criminal gangs, people traffickers and the proliferation of weapons occurring in north western cities.

[Letters]

Holy hell. All I was saying is you'll have robots writing your reality instead of stenographers. To warrant this sort of snow job though

I had to Google "snow job". Never heard that phrase before:
"a deception or concealment of one's real motive in an attempt to flatter or persuade."

That's what you think it is?
Dear me.

Lucky it's me with the mental issues and not you.

Well, I said previously that you infer malicious intent too easily and you have an extreme distrust of authority.
I never said you had "mental issues". But...
If you seriously misinterpret genuine questions as a "snow job".
If you can hear about the army going door to door in Birmingham handing out Covid tests and conclude that it's to "get us used to the presence of the army on our streets".
Then yeah, I think you have some issues dude.

Especially when the army fail to arrive, the curfews and checkpoints don't materialise, and you refuse to admit you were wrong or consider why.
It's not rational. And it doesn't seem to be doing you much good. Which brings me back to the original question about what you're getting out of this.