King of the Hippies
- Nov 22, 2009
When you indicated my tone was unpalatable, I asked how, and in part of your response, you also said "You're drawing conclusions about the way the documents were presented, saying that the fact that they were OCRd is significant"No, this is what you said when I objected to your tone:
I had in fact used the word significant when discussing this very aspect of the situation, but what I actually said was "I don't think it is significant". If you allude to a word I actually used, how I am meant to know you were referring to something else? I also clarified that I am not drawing any conclusions in that regard, I was, in fact, doing the opposite. I'm happy to chat, but I will obviously point out when what I actually said is subsequently misunderstood or misrepresented.
Yes, it is significant in the context of the theme of the discussion, being evidence, disinformation, how to verify claims, etc. It's not terribly important whether it was a lawyer or a journalist, but worthy of comment, since it's implacably logical that if a person is unable or unwilling to absorb extremely basic facts about the story (covered in the first half of the first sentence), it's entirely possible more important things are also missed. That the important stuff is being paid attention to is not a defence, since what we are talking about here is an article that can be read in a matter of minutes: there is not really any justification complaining about my observation in this regard when posting something and asserting strong claims about the content, if you have not, at the very least, merely taken a minute or two to actually read the whole item."Extremely pertinent" is synonymous in meaning to "significant".
I didn't say you said I conceded something. I responded to you asking me if I conceded something, and I explained why this was not the case. I've repeatedly said I can't ascribe any sense to what I am observing, and in the case of the OCR situation, if anything, it's more confounding if a nefarious motive was assumed, than a neutral one, but either way, I don't understand it. But I've not made any claims about the nature of the motives. If I have, please quote the relevant bit, so we can discuss it.I'm not saying that you conceded something, I'm saying that given what you have said, if you're being consistent, you will concede that what you said can only reasonably be interpreted to mean, insofar as you intend to discuss the topic in the first place, that a non-nefarious motive is inconceivable to you, and therefore to the degree that you take issue with the quality of the evidence, there must be some degree of implicit suspicion that the motive is in fact nefarious.
But I didn't say it was significant, I said literally the opposite, way back at the beginning of our discussion, when you asked me why I thought it was significant.Because, as I said, without this presumption in place, there is no reason to conclude that the fact that you observed is significant.
It was a question from my end. You can't take my statement and literally rewrite it to suit your point. I mean you can, but it's hard to have a sensible conversation with someone who tells you what you mean, instead of actually listening to what you are saying.You're introducing the expectation again. "It's expected that they would make it as ironclad as possible, the expectation has not been met and is in need of explanation in order for the account to be satisfying." That's the short version of what your claim here amounts to.
Let's also just perhaps clarify something about expectation, I've said this to you elsewhere already, but it bears repeating:
In some of the instances we are discussing, there is often an uncomfortably large gap between the specifics of the claim VS the presentation of the evidence, in light of what that evidence is said to be.
If there's an article, for example, that says: "A inadvertently heard a conversation between B and C, and the contents were newsworthy, for whatever reason", the closest we can reasonably get (at the time of reading) to assessing such a thing is "Sure, could be possible".
If an article says, on the other hand: "We've got an audio recording of the above conversation, here's a transcription", eyebrows should be sensibly raised.
Any claim that asserts proof is going to engender expectation, by its very existence. How else could we navigate the information we receive without having an expectation of the quality of proof provided? Further, if the proof is stated as incontrovertible, but presented in an unverifiable format, where the initial claim asserts possession of material that could in fact be verified more accurately (or in this case, stand any chance of being verified at all) dependent on how it is disseminated, is a burden for person in possession of the proof, and who is making the claim.
That I am questioning inconsistencies is not me forcing my expectations on anyone - I have no control whatsoever on how people present assertions to me, but it is perfectly normal to apply reasonable scepticism to any claim, and especially so when said claim is bolstered by evidence asserted as verifiable in the hands of the claimant, yet presented in a format that makes it impossible to do so.
At this stage I'm not asking for ironclad proof one this one, simply any proof at all would be fine. And should actual information be published it would make sense to discuss it then, rather than now where we have nothing to work with.Perhaps Hawley wishes to publish the ironclad proof somewhere where he'll actually earn revenue for the publication, considering he is a professional journalist after all...