Really? Do you really believe in your heart of hearts that she was defamed.
Or perhaps my post, to which you reacted so vehemently, was quite simply highlighting how absurd her conclusions were given the events of the last few days.
I will admit, as I have to Craig that using examples that intimated mental illness was a mistake. However, your response was as ludicrous as her original column. To threaten, and yes I use that word deliberately, defamation of her character was absurd.
Most readers here would take your post and the others that have followed it as trolling, whether you intended to troll or not. That is what people are trying to communicate to you when they suggest you should be aware of the neighbourhood and how at odds with it your comments are.
mental health shaming slurs
Ok Craig, on that call I'll accept fault. I also think it was pretty damn clear from my post that I thought neither of those things were reasonable explanations but you are right, even as a light hearted contrast to the more reasonable explanations I was wrong to use them.
evidence. There won’t be any
For some reason people seem to keep forgetting that in most courts eye witness accounts are considered evidence.
Thus Snowden's account IS evidence.
People may question it and challenge it, but dismissing it as non-existent is not reasonable.
FranO’s not stupid
Yeah I didn't think 1 and 2 were reasonable either but that makes 3 and 4 more likely, which is sad. Or there could be another explanation that I hadn't considered.
You don’t like the conclusions
Actually I just think the conclusions she draws are very very obviously false. Everything Greenwald and Snowden have said in the last couple of days directly contradict her conclusions. That leaves her article as something of a masterwork of delusion, self or otherwise.
Starting your sentences with “so” demonstrates that you’re not as comfortable with your story as you think you are. And there’s a good chance that you may be lying.
I listen to the BBC Science in action podcasts as well as Discovery and Naked genetics (less exciting than it sounds) and several other science podcasts (sometimes my benchwork is boring:)).
One of the listeners made the point that almost all the scientists interviewed started their description of their science with
And it was true, and still is.
So*, perhaps that rule of thumb isn't as good as you hope.
*Did you see what I did there :P
Voting? Don’t bother, Key has won.
I can only think of a couple of possibilities for this article
1 Fran O'Sullivan is deranged
2 Fran O'Sullivan is really very stupid
3 Fran O'Sullivan is saying things she knows are not true in an effort to support Key
4 Someone at the National party wrote this propaganda and Fran O'Sullivan agreed to post it under her name
Some of those possibilities are not mutually exclusive.
In all seriousness I find it interesting the way people can, quite seriously, say things like this. In a way it's a fascinating piece of self delusion. They come to the discussion having already decided that, for example, Key is honest, and then interpret every piece of data in a way that supports that view.
For some it is unconscious bias, they don't even realise they are doing it, and that is true to some degree for all of us. For others it is self-serving dishonesty, they know what they are saying is bollocks but they say it anyway because it is personally profitable.
There appear to be a few too many of the latter in the media of late.
Glenn Greenwald did not win the Pulitzer Prize
He's probably not even a professional journalist like Mike Hosking
Today we will get to see which, if any, of the people claiming to be journalists in NZ are able to tell the real story instead of getting mired in the dross on all sides.
Andrea Vance has done well as has Keith Ng (who doesn't claim to be a journalist yet often outshines them all).
It is an opportunity for them to actually serve NZ in the way their profession always claims to serve. The easy story will be the e-mail and the shambles of a news conference. The important story is something different and harder and much more unpleasant to report. They may even have to risk their special relationship as political insiders in order to tell the important stories. I wonder how many will have the moral fiber to do that.
Not even Richard Nixon would write something as incriminating or stupid as that.
While I don't know if the e-mail is a fake or not it is unwise to assume that the people purported to write the e-mail are intelligent or act intelligently. There is ample evidence that people can be ridiculously stupid, even people such as senior executives.