Anyone who thinks I did this for money...

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

Thats just your opinion

You agree it's an opinion. Good. Now let's stick to facts.

It is possible to make an incorrect inference.

From your response to The Gunn Show, you either did or didn't make an incorrect inference.

You are of the opinion that your inference was not incorrect, I am of the opinion that your inference was incorrect.

Only one of those opinions can be right.

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

21 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The problem is that the phrase "you're entitled to your own opinion" is missing a key word out.

It should be "you're entitled to your own informed opinion".

Sure, if someone says/writes something, by all means try to approach it on its own merits and see what it's saying. The problem is that many think "everyone's entitled to their own opinion" means every opinion has equal merit, conflating it with every opinion should have an equal chance to be heard. 

 

There are subjects that can only be a matter of opinion. A preference for one colour over another - "Blue is the best" - or views on the arts - "Mime is an affront to good taste and all mime artists should be shot". Although I would argue that is so obviously correct as a judgment that it counts more as a statement of fact than a mere opinion. And things so far unproven either way, such as the existence or otherwise of a supreme being or force in the universe.

But opinions on matters of fact have to be backed up by the facts to have any validity. The Earth is round because if it was flat it would not be possible to fly around it, or see it as a globe from space. It is a proven matter of fact that Boris Johnson is a frequent liar, so anyone who believed he had always told the truth would be expressing  a worthless opinion because it ran totally counter to the facts.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

27 minutes ago, ricardo said:

No not at all. opinions don't have merit simply by the number of people who express a certain view. Just because the majority of the human race believe in a supreme being doesn't make it a demonstrable fact. Its just another subject I among others hold a minority opinion on. Your last sentence seems to suggest that you believe minority opinions shouldn't have an equal  chance to be heard and that troubles me a great deal.

Nope, you've misunderstood what I wrote.

The merit of an opinion is determined by how well-informed it is, not the number of people who hold it. The whole point of a good discussion is to determine how well-informed that opinion is. Not the number of people who hold it.

Edited March 3, 2023 by TheGunnShow

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

No not at all. opinions don't have merit simply by the number of people who express a certain view. Just because the majority of the human race believe in a supreme being doesn't make it a demonstrable fact. Its just another subject I among others hold a minority opinion on. Your last sentence seems to suggest that you believe minority opinions shouldn't have an equal  chance to be heard and that troubles me a great deal.

This is one of the problems with current journalism. You and I can remember when you read a newspaper for the news and then read the leader for an opinion on a current UK or world problem or event. Luckily we missed WWII but are of an age when a crisis such as Suez had support from all colours of the spectrum. We were right and they were wrong.

We now know that it wasn't as simple as flag waving. And we are quite willing to listen to, if not look for, the other side's reasons and opinions. And the area where LYB and I differed was the DUP and perfectly illustrates it. We grew up being told the IRA did not have an argument. They were terrorists. We even banned Irish from our pubs in case they left a bomb. So much propaganda. Now I realise and know that the republicans have a valid argument and cause, non violently hopefully, and the nationalists are not the next door neighbours like us we were told they were.

Modern journalism always appears to have an opinion subliminally included. And with the advent of biased reporting such as Fox News in the US and now GB News and Talk TV, it makes the assertion the BBC is left wing absolutely hilarious.

So as you say, there is no right or wrong with opinion. If it is incontrovertible fact based then it isn't opinion. Its the truth. Opinion is something else. It can be an emotional outburst or siding with an argument just to keep the peace. 

[Barbe bleu 826]

9 hours ago, sonyc said:

..... It doesn't matter who is wrong or who is right. At all. It makes no difference. What is important is being able to express one's views, one's feelings. Those feelings are as valid as anyone else's

Actions do matter. Being kind and respectful matters. People's lives matter.

Highlighted a couple of bits that I think hit the nail.on the head. You're a good guy, I'll say that

[horsefly 4,300]

16 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Okay genius, you tell me how a minority party gets a policy through parliament without votes from the Conservative or Labour?

If they'd got a majority then it's fair enough to hold them to account for it, like few people seem to do with Labour or the Conservatives for their broken promises in majority government.

It was YOU that claimed that the introduction of PR was the only way to restore trust in our democracy. Now you're telling us we must expect the minor party in any coalition to break any promise they may have made to voters in order to share power. So do tell us how trust is restored in our political system by that Machiavellian deceit.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 hour ago, canarydan23 said:

You agree it's an opinion. Good. Now let's stick to facts.

It is possible to make an incorrect inference.

From your response to The Gunn Show, you either did or didn't make an incorrect inference.

You are of the opinion that your inference was not incorrect, I am of the opinion that your inference was incorrect.

Only one of those opinions can be right.

No, the inferences you and I draw are puely subjective and therefore both have validity in their own right.

Thats my opinion but probably not yours.

[ricardo 7,395]

53 minutes ago, horsefly said:

It was YOU that claimed that the introduction of PR was the only way to restore trust in our democracy. Now you're telling us we must expect the minor party in any coalition to break any promise they may have made to voters in order to share power. So do tell us how trust is restored in our political system by that Machiavellian deceit.

A good argument as to why PR has as many faults as any other system. Small parties often end up eating themselves in a quest for an impossible purity.

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, ricardo said:

No, the inferences you and I draw are puely subjective and therefore both have validity in their own right.

Thats my opinion but probably not yours.

Eh? You're getting confused again.

My inference has nothing to do with this. We are talking about the inference YOU made. And whether YOUR inference was correct. You believed it was, I believed it wasn't.

You've now been told by the person who communicated the original point that you misunderstood. Therefore your inference was incorrect. And your opinion that it wasn't incorrect was wrong.

These are facts, old boy. At least in the small microcosm that is the PinkUn, there certainly appears to be a trend that those who struggle to deal with facts voted Brexit.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

God - Back to the thread.

I really dislike Oakeshott.  Odious. This is story is becoming all about her! 

She's a kind of female self opinionated distrustful Johnson it seems.

 

Just on the LD thread - yes I used to class myself as generally a LD voter (Blairite) - but to show how rounded I was a few Tory friends (an MP no less) once told me in politics never to use the the word Never. It will come back to haunt you. Good advice.

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

No not at all. opinions don't have merit simply by the number of people who express a certain view. Just because the majority of the human race believe in a supreme being doesn't make it a demonstrable fact. Its just another subject I among others hold a minority opinion on. Your last sentence seems to suggest that you believe minority opinions shouldn't have an equal  chance to be heard and that troubles me a great deal.

@ricardo@ricardo you may have stumbled upon the thread to end all non football threads. Is he/she/it real or is it just pie in the sky? Here's a 2010 world view of the existence of a greater being, which surprisingly doesn't mention Norwich. 

Edited March 3, 2023 by dylanisabaddog

[ricardo 7,395]

5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

God - Back to the thread.

I really dislike Oakeshott.  Odious. This is story is becoming all about her! 

 

 

So do I but thats just a subjective opinion that may or may not change if more information becomes available.

My present opinion is that your present opinion is correct.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

Just now, ricardo said:

So do I but thats just a subjective opinion that may or may not change if more information becomes available.

My present opinion is that your present opinion is correct.

Arh - the Schrodinger dead cat (or will it be the Governments) dead cat theory.

Are they all dead or alive, depending if we look and which universe we are in.

[ricardo 7,395]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

@ricardo@ricardo you may have stumbled upon the thread to end all non football threads. Is he/she/it real or is it just pie in the sky? Here's a 2010 world view which surprisingly doesn't mention Norwich. 

What was the percentage for Pie in the Sky?

An interesting Chart but does God really worry about Opinion Polls.

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Arh - the Schrodinger dead cat (or will it be the Governments) dead cat theory.

Are they all dead or alive, depending if we look and which universe we are in.

Unfortunately in this Universe Sainsburys have upped the price of Calgon from a tenner to sixteen quid.

My opinion is that they are taking the pi$$.

[dylanisabaddog 4,921]

1 minute ago, ricardo said:

What was the percentage for Pie in the Sky?

An interesting Chart but does God really worry about Opinion Polls.

He does when it starts hitting him in the pocket. 

The thing I've always thought strange about God is that for someone who is all knowing and all powerful he doesn't seem to be very good with money. 

[ricardo 7,395]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

He does when it starts hitting him in the pocket. 

The thing I've always thought strange about God is that for someone who is all knowing and all powerful he doesn't seem to be very good with money. 

You probably don't need much cash if you exist outside reality.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

8 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Unfortunately in this Universe Sainsburys have upped the price of Calgon from a tenner to sixteen quid.

My opinion is that they are taking the pi$$.

Is that Catgon ?🐈

 

 

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Yellow Fever said:

Is that Catgon ?🐈

 

 

No its the stuff Mrs R uses to keep the washing M/C clean.

Never tried it on a cat.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

46 minutes ago, ricardo said:

No its the stuff Mrs R uses to keep the washing M/C clean.

Never tried it on a cat.

I've done my research and found the facts that Calgon is something you put in the washing to keep the washing machine clean. Mmmmm.

Its like the joke about Essential Oils. I've never used them but if they are essential, am I shortening my life?

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, keelansgrandad said:

I've done my research and found the facts that Calgon is something you put in the washing to keep the washing machine clean. Mmmmm.

Its like the joke about Essential Oils. I've never used them but if they are essential, am I shortening my life?

Mrs R reckons it stops that black stuff building up in the M/C. I bow to her superior knowledge on that subject.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

58 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Mrs R reckons it stops that black stuff building up in the M/C. I bow to her superior knowledge on that subject.

Isn't the black stuff called dirt?

[Barbe bleu 826]

4 hours ago, ricardo said:

As I said before, you are at liberty to please yourself because we still live in a country where differing opinions can be expressed without fear.

I must now leave this interesting conversation as Mrs R wants to drag me round Sainsburys. I have expressed the opinion that I don't want to go but to no avail, such is life.

Turns out there is such a thing as a wrong opinion.  Your opinion was wrong and your wife's was right. 

[ricardo 7,395]

1 minute ago, Barbe bleu said:

Turns out there is such a thing as a wrong opinion.  Your opinion was wrong and your wife's was right. 

My opinion remained correct but was overuled by a superior power.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Turns out there is such a thing as a wrong opinion.  Your opinion was wrong and your wife's was right. 

Mrs R probably used ultimatum as the prudent word.

[Mello Yello 2,293]

                                                         Yer durn't need Calgon if yer duz yer lorndary propper!.....

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

6 hours ago, horsefly said:

It was YOU that claimed that the introduction of PR was the only way to restore trust in our democracy. Now you're telling us we must expect the minor party in any coalition to break any promise they may have made to voters in order to share power. So do tell us how trust is restored in our political system by that Machiavellian deceit.

And it will. In that scenario its obvious to any reasonable person that parties need the votes of other parties to deliver anything in their manifesto, so nothing can be considered guaranteed.

It's not so black and white as Labour's repeated lies regarding electoral reform and tuition fees over several manifestoes when in majority government last time.

Most of the Labour grass roots want PR now; the Labour leadership are desperately resisting because they know full well that there'll be a massive exodus to the Greens, Lib Dems, and doubtless new options, leaving them a smaller institution; still in the game, but no longer able to have power all to itself. Party before country.

I understand your determination to rubbish PR though seeing as you're obviously highly partisan in favour of the Labour party who depend on it to coerce people from voting for other parties other than Labour and the Conservatives.

Edited March 3, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

7 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

God - Back to the thread.

I really dislike Oakeshott.  Odious. This is story is becoming all about her! 

She's a kind of female self opinionated distrustful Johnson it seems.

 

Just on the LD thread - yes I used to class myself as generally a LD voter (Blairite) - but to show how rounded I was a few Tory friends (an MP no less) once told me in politics never to use the the word Never. It will come back to haunt you. Good advice.

I left this part of the message board because after seven years of repetitive argument over the same topics interspersed with trolling it was clear, and is clearly born out by this thread today, that there is little value in visiting. However, the Oakeshott situation did reveal new information on an old topic and as a Telegraph subscriber I thought I might be able to shed some light on what is actually being reported in the Telegraph.

The Telegraph is going with all guns blazing on the subject of Handcock's Whatsapp messages. About half the online paper is devoted to the subject since the story broke and they have tried to cover all angles. One of the themes emerging is a backlash against Oakeshott for using the whatsapp messages for a purposes other than what she was given them for - but that is more of a sub-plot to the main story. What seems to be emerging is that firstly, the country was much more complicit and comfortable with the idea of lockdown and social distancing measures than the government thought possible. It was the government's experts within the Sage group who were more cautious than the politicians and more insistent on continuing measures when the real data indicated things were not as bad as the forecasts projected. But anyone pointing out mistakes or irregularities in the Sage data were treated as conspiracy theorists or fringe lunatics and their voices shutdown. 

One thing of interest that I learned was that when dealing with major events, the experts normal set up what is known as a red team, whose job is to act as a devil's advocate trying to pick holes in plans as a kind of back stop against going ahead with mistaken ideas. In the case of the pandemic no red team was set up so no one in government was challenging the experts. So for example, the messages indicate no one wanted to bring up the subject of why Sweden were getting the results they did without lockdowns. 

The Whatsapp messages show that Johnson was very sceptical about the need for a second lockdown but by this time Sage had developed a bunker mentality as they tried to deal with the increasing deaths of the second wave.

 

People can make the own conclusions about what really happened in government during the pandemic from the information in these Whatsapp messages. One of the big takeaways for me is the huge reliance placed on what the Sage experts were saying, and shutting out any dissenting opinion. For example, the Lab Leak theory of the source of Covid was dismissed as conspiracy theory when it was first mentioned, but here we are now a lot of weight being given to the possibility that Covid did originate in a Wuhan laboratory. I was employed as an expert by the European Commission for over ten years, and I know for a fact that experts will tell their paymasters exactly what they want to hear. Should we ever be in the same situation in the future, hopefully the government will listen to a wider range of voices than just a small group of internals who all have their own agendas.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,549]

9 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

I left this part of the message board because after seven years of repetitive argument over the same topics interspersed with trolling it was clear, and is clearly born out by this thread today, that there is little value in visiting. However, the Oakeshott situation did reveal new information on an old topic and as a Telegraph subscriber I thought I might be able to shed some light on what is actually being reported in the Telegraph.

The Telegraph is going with all guns blazing on the subject of Handcock's Whatsapp messages. About half the online paper is devoted to the subject since the story broke and they have tried to cover all angles. One of the themes emerging is a backlash against Oakeshott for using the whatsapp messages for a purposes other than what she was given them for - but that is more of a sub-plot to the main story. What seems to be emerging is that firstly, the country was much more complicit and comfortable with the idea of lockdown and social distancing measures than the government thought possible. It was the government's experts within the Sage group who were more cautious than the politicians and more insistent on continuing measures when the real data indicated things were not as bad as the forecasts projected. But anyone pointing out mistakes or irregularities in the Sage data were treated as conspiracy theorists or fringe lunatics and their voices shutdown. 

One thing of interest that I learned was that when dealing with major events, the experts normal set up what is known as a red team, whose job is to act as a devil's advocate trying to pick holes in plans as a kind of back stop against going ahead with mistaken ideas. In the case of the pandemic no red team was set up so no one in government was challenging the experts. So for example, the messages indicate no one wanted to bring up the subject of why Sweden were getting the results they did without lockdowns. 

The Whatsapp messages show that Johnson was very sceptical about the need for a second lockdown but by this time Sage had developed a bunker mentality as they tried to deal with the increasing deaths of the second wave.

 

People can make the own conclusions about what really happened in government during the pandemic from the information in these Whatsapp messages. One of the big takeaways for me is the huge reliance placed on what the Sage experts were saying, and shutting out any dissenting opinion. For example, the Lab Leak theory of the source of Covid was dismissed as conspiracy theory when it was first mentioned, but here we are now a lot of weight being given to the possibility that Covid did originate in a Wuhan laboratory. I was employed as an expert by the European Commission for over ten years, and I know for a fact that experts will tell their paymasters exactly what they want to hear. Should we ever be in the same situation in the future, hopefully the government will listen to a wider range of voices than just a small group of internals who all have their own agendas.

WRT Isabel Oakeshott, she's a journalist, but she was given that information in her contractual role as a ghost writer. I really hope she can be sued, because she has probably made most journalists jobs much harder with the breach of trust.

In this instance, arguably the red team was built into the scientific community itself; people couldn't analyse and interpret raw data fast enough for a situation evolving far faster than could be coped with, let alone adding a layer of political interpretation on top of that. Erring on the side of caution may well have caused unecessary economic damage, mental health issues and so on; erring on the side of a relaxed attitude ran the risk of exceeding hospital capacities and suddenly finding your excess deaths going through the roof as heallth provision collapsed; never forget that being on the wrong side of errors is not where you want to be with regard to issues regarding exponential growth.

That said, we know that there was division in government about how to handle lockdown and so on anyway; there were plenty of people voluntarily arguing the opposite case in government.

Ultimately, trusting the science as 'right', as the best guess available, in that scenario was the best course of action, fully accepting there were going to be mistakes in that process.

Overall, I'm failing to understand what the motive is for bringing all of this up now. Hancock is already finished, having lost the whip, and Sunak was known to be in the opening up the economy sooner rather than later camp anyway; it all seems a bit pointless for anyone trying to... rock the boat.

 

[Herman 9,764]

A battle where you hope all the protagonists lose.