Expertise

[jassi]

Yeah. The difficulty being that nobody knows what the truth actually is. 

[gilet]

Yeah. The difficulty being that nobody knows what the truth actually is. 

Correct, something I have been saying ever since my first post on this forum.

Those who claim to know that the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who proclaims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either.

This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would be a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate.

[Brietta]

I think it is great to have experts in their field posting opinions either to correct misconceptions, answer points put to them and just to generally keep the debate on track.  Just so long as they don’t patronise and take over.

[icabodcrane]

Correct, something I have been saying ever since my first post on this forum.

Those who claim to know that the McCanns "done it", whatever that IT might be are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who proclaims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong. They don't know the truth of the matter either.

This is why it is incumbent on posters to question every single detail about the case and not for whatever reason to claim that such questioning is attacking people or creating enemies of people. It is not, it is simply the most sensible way of attempting to get a little closer to the underlying truth.

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ Files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case we have but are they 100% genuine, are they complete as released by the PJ. Given the way in which they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that.

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would be a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might not be completely accurate.

Goodness me  ...   I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !

The most obvious,  of course in the pure  Antirationalism of the first portion of your post  :

Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it",   whatever that IT might be,  are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong.  They don't know the truth of the matter either 

What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions.  Those who,  like you,  use this antirationist method of propogada often claim  ;

"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"

That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth  ...  Yes,  we  can know some things for sure

There's a little bit of  'Escape via Relativism'  in that section of your post too   ...  the generalized,     "everybody has their own opinion"  implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence    (  which is not true of course  ) 

The next paragraph in your post,  whilst using a bit of  'conflation'   ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters  )  is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique,  but is,  I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity,  whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw

Then we come to :

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100%  genuine,  are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that. 

At first glance that paragraph is classic  'Straw man'  ...  propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened    (  the  'doctoring'  of the police files  )   but it is more than that in propaganda terms

You are also using the technique of of  'Spurious delegitimization of evidence'    ...  in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo

And to your  concluding paragraph :

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might  not be completely accurate

You've excelled yourself there ! 

You incorporate a bit of  the  'stroking ploy'   by refering to those who  refer to the police files when supporting a opinion  as  'experts'  on the case ...  but then pick up the  'delegitimize your opponent'  technique by implying their expertise might be flawed

Then it's back to the old staw man,   where you,  once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way,   and  propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma

You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet,  but,  if I might say,  you do tend to over-egg the pudding 


     

[stephen25000]

Goodness me  ...   I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !

The most obvious,  of course in the pure  Antirationalism of the first portion of your post  :

Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it",   whatever that IT might be,  are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong.  They don't know the truth of the matter either 

What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions.  Those who,  like you,  use this antirationist method of propogada often claim  ;

"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"

That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth  ...  Yes,  we  can know some things for sure

There's a little bit of  'Escape via Relativism'  in that section of your post too   ...  the generalized,     "everybody has their own opinion"  implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence    (  which is not true of course  ) 

The next paragraph in your post,  whilst using a bit of  'conflation'   ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters  )  is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique,  but is,  I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity,  whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw

Then we come to :

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100%  genuine,  are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that. 

At first glance that paragraph is classic  'Straw man'  ...  propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened    (  the  'doctoring'  of the police files  )   but it is more than that in propaganda terms

You are also using the technique of of  'Spurious delegitimization of evidence'    ...  in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo

And to your  concluding paragraph :

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might  not be completely accurate

You've excelled yourself there ! 

You incorporate a bit of  the  'stroking ploy'   by refering to those who  refer to the police files when supporting a opinion  as  'experts'  on the case ...  but then pick up the  'delegitimize your opponent'  technique by implying their expertise might be flawed

Then it's back to the old staw man,   where you,  once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way,   and  propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma

You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet,  but,  if I might say,  you do tend to over-egg the pudding 


   

Excellent post Icabodcrane.

[Cariad]

Goodness me  ...   I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !

The most obvious,  of course in the pure  Antirationalism of the first portion of your post  :

Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it",   whatever that IT might be,  are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong.  They don't know the truth of the matter either 

What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions.  Those who,  like you,  use this antirationist method of propogada often claim  ;

"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"

That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth  ...  Yes,  we  can know some things for sure

There's a little bit of  'Escape via Relativism'  in that section of your post too   ...  the generalized,     "everybody has their own opinion"  implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence    (  which is not true of course  ) 

The next paragraph in your post,  whilst using a bit of  'conflation'   ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters  )  is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique,  but is,  I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity,  whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw

Then we come to :

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100%  genuine,  are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that. 

At first glance that paragraph is classic  'Straw man'  ...  propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened    (  the  'doctoring'  of the police files  )   but it is more than that in propaganda terms

You are also using the technique of of  'Spurious delegitimization of evidence'    ...  in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo

And to your  concluding paragraph :

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might  not be completely accurate

You've excelled yourself there ! 

You incorporate a bit of  the  'stroking ploy'   by refering to those who  refer to the police files when supporting a opinion  as  'experts'  on the case ...  but then pick up the  'delegitimize your opponent'  technique by implying their expertise might be flawed

Then it's back to the old staw man,   where you,  once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way,   and  propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma

You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet,  but,  if I might say,  you do tend to over-egg the pudding 


   

To nick Esty's turn of phrase, if Gilet's posts all all pie crust and no filling, this is the finest fillet steak stewed slowly for hours till it's so  tender it just melts in your mouth, with a gravy as thick and flavoursome as any ambrosia.

[gilet]

To nick Esty's turn of phrase, if Gilet's posts all all pie crust and no filling, this is the finest fillet steak stewed slowly for hours till it's so  tender it just melts in your mouth, with a gravy as thick and flavoursome as any ambrosia.

Is that effort supposed to demonstrate intelligence or is it just a rather pathetic attempt at abuse?

Either way, it reflects very badly on the poster.

[gilet]

Goodness me  ...   I'm astonished at the number of propoganda techniques you managed to incorporate into a single post !

The most obvious,  of course in the pure  Antirationalism of the first portion of your post  :

Those who claim to know the McCanns "done it",   whatever that IT might be,  are simply wrong. They don't know the truth about the situation.

Just as anyone who claims it is categorically a case of abduction is wrong.  They don't know the truth of the matter either 

What you did there was promote the idea that there are no such things as valid, reliable facts or hard evidence, just various conflicting opinions.  Those who,  like you,  use this antirationist method of propogada often claim  ;

"It's just my opinion versus your opinion and it's all so controversial that we can't really know anything for sure"

That is a dodge to avoid admitting the truth  ...  Yes,  we  can know some things for sure

There's a little bit of  'Escape via Relativism'  in that section of your post too   ...  the generalized,     "everybody has their own opinion"  implying that every opinion is backed up with equally valid or equally compelling evidence    (  which is not true of course  ) 

The next paragraph in your post,  whilst using a bit of  'conflation'   ( telling us what is incumbent on us if we are to be considered good posters  )  is not really relying on any particular propaganda technique,  but is,  I suspect merely another dig at Serendipity,  whose acceptance by this forum is stuck firmly in your craw

Then we come to :

A perfect example of where many thought a kind of truth lies is in the PJ files which are hosted on a blog site.  They may be the most accurate details of the case that we have but are they 100%  genuine,  are they complete as released by the PJ, Given the way they came into the public domain it is perfectly fair to question that. 

At first glance that paragraph is classic  'Straw man'  ...  propping up an absurd hypothetical situation that never really happened    (  the  'doctoring'  of the police files  )   but it is more than that in propaganda terms

You are also using the technique of of  'Spurious delegitimization of evidence'    ...  in an attempt to discredit the police files with nothing more than innuendo

And to your  concluding paragraph :

Some are seen as more expert on the case than others because they have a good grasp of the files and can find details within them quickly. It would a shame if that expertise was flawed because the files themselves might  not be completely accurate

You've excelled yourself there ! 

You incorporate a bit of  the  'stroking ploy'   by refering to those who  refer to the police files when supporting a opinion  as  'experts'  on the case ...  but then pick up the  'delegitimize your opponent'  technique by implying their expertise might be flawed

Then it's back to the old staw man,   where you,  once again present the entirely hypothetical case of the police files having been tampered with in some way,   and  propose that this purely hypothetical suggestion somehow presents us with a dilemma

You are an accomplished propagandist Gilet,  but,  if I might say,  you do tend to over-egg the pudding 


   

There are three significant problems with your post.

Firstly it does not in any way answer any of the actual points I made.

Secondly it demonstrates precisely why people should not pretend to expertise which they do not possess. You have attempted to use terminology with which you are not overly familiar and have shown that lack of familiarity by being unable to use them correctly.

Thirdly, the fact that it is nothing more than a pretentious attempt at abuse shines through in a way you hoped it would not.

Not even a nice try, I am afraid.

Now, can you actually answer any of the points I made in the post or is that your best effort?

[Cariad]

Is that effort supposed to demonstrate intelligence or is it just a rather pathetic attempt at abuse?

Either way, it reflects very badly on the poster.

It was praise for Icabod's excellent post. Not everything is about you.

If I wanted to be abusive, you notice words along the lines of "oh shut up you pompous old windbag"

Since my post contained non of the above, you can rest assured that nothing I wrote was aimed at you.

[Mr Gray]

As John has said...posters can be judged by their posts...and serendipity's post did not impress

[stephen25000]

As John has said...posters can be judged by their posts...and serendipity's post did not impress

Perhaps that should be judged in context.

i.e. If more information is ever revealed.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps that should be judged in context.

i.e. If more information is ever revealed.

One of her first posts sated that Amnesty was now not listing amaral  re torture, as it had been established that torture had not taken place....the post is still there...

This is 100% wrong...That's one thing that I have judged her on

[Mr Gray]

Was Serendipity ever declared an expert on torture?

serendipity was never declared an expert on anything..and quite rightly to by the standard of her posts

[stephen25000]

serendipity was never declared an expert on anything..and quite rightly to by the standard of her posts

So davel, why exactly should we take your word on anything either ???

P.S. Are you disputing what John said about Serendipity ?

[Mr Gray]

So davel, why exactly should we take your word on anything either ???

everyone should use their own judgement...