Samson79 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:59 amIm open to the idea it is all fake, including all the profiles here, this forum, even the idea everything must be fake.....seems fake, so Im open to the idea, yes.
Not everything is fake. But I guess it depends on what you mean by 'everything'.
Samson79 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:59 amHowever, your quoting me as saying something.... I didnt, I linked to someone commenting on the idea of a post it note somehow being evidence of a confession. I posted the link above it to where it was written which shows who wrote it and whos opinions it shows, I did not write that, you assumed I did.
Perhaps you don't realise, but as well as old fashioned quotes, there is a quote format option to indicate whether something is a quote. In the post I linked to (
viewtopic.php?p=10493#p10493) it seems to me that you say:
Narratives are in the control grip of the media.
It is simply a one directional comm. Everything you see or watch has to be assumed fake/staged until it is proven as true, what ever is being projected it is not up for debate or framed to be questioned, so it wouldn't be to far fetched to use their own game against them, which is guilty until proven innocent...
etc. I assumed that because there were no quote marks or attribution. But from your statement, I take it you're saying that this is not you. If that's it, as you don't indicate that it is a quote nor attribute who the quote is from, I think I ought to be excused for thinking it was a personal statement of yours. Or perhaps there is some further confusion?
Samson79 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:59 amIm also open to the idea this didn't happen, sure, everything posted in this forum could be fake, the content could be theatre, the users could be AI generated (they are all over the internet) but you have only seeded the idea so far, evidenced by your opinion it likely is fake because:
"it has lots of media event elements to it - the name, the numbers, the photos, the reference to other media operations"
So using your same logic, most of this forum's content is based on interpretations of names, numbers, photos all referenced to other media operations......so some of which have yet to be evidenced as having happened but by simply using group-think some of these events are imho still based in opinion and reasoned hunches, or not given the same scrutiny in any given amount.
That's not my logic, that's just you
misunderstanding my logic. But I will take the opportunity to clarify what I think.
I would say there are degrees of potential fakery. When it comes to MSM sources such as the BBC, that is a different level to say people discussing this or that on a forum. I'd say it would be hard to argue that we on this forum are in any meaningful way 'guiding the narrative'. Especially in comparison to the BBC's far stronger and broader guidance.
Samson79 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:59 amNeither of us attended court, we might travel past our local court and realise it is real and has been there for years in the same place as it always has, but Ive not seen the court in another town or city, but to propose the court in another town or city doesnt exist or is fake is delusional to someone who attended, documented their attendance and that being only disseminated via media in your opinion would make it fake, especially if your focusing on something else....
Well, I'm going to quote the person that you say isn't you, as I think the auto-hoax position they espoused is the right one:
Everything you see or watch has to be assumed fake/staged until it is proven as true.
Here however, you are saying that the event
is true, but that Lucy Letby has been set up in some way, that some alternative interpretation of science that partially uses virology, shows that the event wasn't as we are told. I wanted to understand how you came to that conclusion, why you believe this alternative science take, etc.
Samson79 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:59 amAre you open to the idea that projecting everything as fake because of numbers or photos or being linked to media can damage peoples perceptions of reality by making it seem something that is real isn't but groups of people can agree they are and produce content past that point to discredit very real events, effectively making it harder for outsiders to gain truth of the matter?
That's quite a confusing question and I'm not certain I grasp what you are saying. I
think the thrust of it is: 'if I say everything is fake I could mislead people into questioning something that was actually true!' If that's it, you are accusing me of proposing a skeptical position on all information, even info that
might be true but is unproven!
In that case - I find myself
guilty as charged! I really
do suggest that people do not assume that whatever-it-is is true unless they personally verify it. I've said so for years. And I would include forum posts, MSM articles and events, one's own experience to some extent, and even the Bible (shock, horror!) as sources that one should be skeptical of. I say, far better to take a skeptical position that the auto-believing one, as it saves one wasting so much time chasing up nonsense!
I still want to understand your basis for believing the alternative take on this trial to be true. Why do you stand by this virologist's claim that it couldn't have been Lucy Letby?