You have made no remarks saying how much you like someone or not but you most definitely have stated that you believe that Finch is unable to give a viewpoint that is not tainted. This is only your viewpoint and not necessarily true. Yes you are entitled to have that viewpoint, but you judgment on Finch is tainted by your view of him, so are unable to give him a fair chance in putting his view across. Now you can try and argue as much as you like in defence of your untainted views. But unless you are omnipotent, your views are tainted. JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE’S, fact!
But when somebody says that they don’t like somebody and never will then surely any view point afterwards is tainted? So what I said wasn't tainted but based on fact. If he said something then it is a fact. If I presume something then you could conclude that my words are tainted.
So your argument is that even if there is nothing going on that is something, so therefore, what you have said is true? Really? What kind of defence is that? Besides, that is not the point you were making, but scraping the barrel to form a defence against this point. Either way you still made a presumption, which no matter how you dress it up and call it Shirley, is still tainted. You can squirm and wriggle and even go back and change your posts if you like, but the end result is still the same. You are not infallible, you have an opinion, every time you make a statement that has come from your perspective it will be tainted by your past experiences. You are trying to argue that that shadows forming on the cave wall are reality, I am simply asking you to turn around.
No, that is not what I said. Surely you agree that something was said in the boardroom? Granted I don’t know what that something was. I think you’ve missed read what I said.
Here you are saying that unless you have a direct ear to what is going on then they know nothing. However, it does mean that by implication, that you also know nothing. Therefore, everything you have stated is based on assumption and is therefore tainted
Put it this way; most fans draw their conclusions from no other source other than their beliefs/ prejudices. When I try to look into it I read what was said, talk to people I know and then draw my conclusions. Of course I could be wrong but I try to make an educated conclusion, over any prejudices I might have had. Look at it another; I have drawn certain conclusions – like everybody else has – but once I’ve looked into it as thoroughly as I could I’ve changed my view point. I am not saying what I’ve come up with is 100% right but what I am saying it has been researched. I know how easy it is to draw on our own prejudices/ assumptions. So I try not to.
Yes, and we are all able to use our own judgement, believing that we are closer to the truth than somebody else. I am as guilty of that as anyone else. However, what you are refusing to accept is that others have that same belief in their own viewpoints, and as much right to state them as so. Every time you claim to have more authority and accuracy on the matter, it is tainted with your judgement of it.
I agree, but please read what I said about to understand where I am coming from.
Yes but you are not Sherlock Holmes and have not eliminated the impossible, you have taken the word of this mystery person, and a few other sources and read the paper. Hardly a criminal forensic investigation is it? I have also been told by various official sources and read in the paper that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, turned out to be a load of bull. And they were so convincing too! So forgive when I point out that no matter whom or where you have gained your information, a viewpoint is subject to being tainted. No you may think I am being pedantic, but I only did what you wanted. Besides, you think I’m being pedantic, but others may disagree, thinking that you, I or both of us have tainted views. I would hope they think the last, as it is the most accurate.
First of all; I agree on some points in what you said here. But a mystery person to who? You maybe but not me.
Of course something could turn out to be a load of bull. I accept that. But my point is – as I explained it above – I try not to just accept the common belief but also dig into it. Reading various reports/ papers and seeing certain contacts I have – through writing various Spurs Magazines in the past (and this can be verified) - and I then draw my conclusions. As I said above I have gone into something with preconceived conceptions but when digging deeper I have been forced to change my mind. Now I am not saying through my research that what I have got is perfect, as it is not; unless I got it from the horse’s mouth. But what I am saying is that I have done everything in my power to try to find or dig deep to find the truth or nearest to the truth as possible. Concerning your remarks about WMDs and lies. If I could quote from Sherlock Holmes again. “When the fact change, I change my mind, what do you do sir”. That is an exact quote and the last bit is not me trying to be funny.
I also must offer you an apology. When I last wrote my long reply to you it was late at night and I rushed it so didn’t give you my full undivided attention. So I hope the reply above is much better?
I also like to thank you for challenging me, which I welcome and enjoy debating with somebody of good intelligence; who can debate without abusive tones. It annoys me when somebody – not you – accuses me of talking drivel but then doesn’t back it up with examples. If that happened I then can either defend or apologise. But you are a good debater and a worthy opponent. May you keep it up?
61 Replies
20472 Views