As towards ego, I personally think questions can help to weigh a certain narrative. This way, when confronted with the same, the answer given is one of personal conviction rather than echoing the opinion of other people, even though it may appear to sound good.
So, although, I personally find the framing of Magacoin's post to be pompous, (and thus written from an ego central point of view, to wit: I'll educate you, implying the reader to be failing and defective and in need of remedy, he has a point.
to cut of the echo chamber by repeating an MSN narrative.
I feel this is a good thing.
to promote critical and logical thinking instead of using emotion to respond.
I feel this too is a good thing. One, because Q has said so often, and two: questions are a very good device to highlight the issue.And you do not have to be a lawyer, as we are operating from the information given and contained within the rebuttal. We actually can use the legal mind of Sidney Powell to come to a conclusion.
I wrote this in another post:
Dominion fucked up bigly. I suppose they aimed high to be in the light shielded by favorable judges. It appears from the rebuttal that they have no leg to stand on to bring a tort claim in DC.
Now they have to lie in their own bed of nails.
Presenting a view based on sworn testimony and gathers evidence is not defamatory in and of itself, and given the fact these proofs have not been subject to judicial review, facts have not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
Meaning: the merits of the case of defective Dominion voting machines leading to fraud needs to be subject to judicial review.
SO, the piece of text fueling the echo chamber narrative is taken out of context and given a different spin.
A bit akin to how we normies regard the word theory. We often juxtapose theory with practice in real live. However, scientifically speaking, theory is nothing more than a set of reproducible explanations at the current time and subject to change when new evidence comes in.
The same happened with the word fact and reasonable person. Legally, fact is considered a supported by evidence determined finding. For us normies, facts are different. Our own reasons to call something a fact differ from person to person, and we often mix it up with truth.
And this is how the echo chamber press is playing people.
So, did Magacoin's post miss the mark? I think so, because we all are at a different point, dependent on time to read the rebuttal, understanding the reasoning, our knowledge of the subject matter to date.
Did the post encourage to spent some time to digest it? Yes and no, I think. Given your response, I would say, no. For me, yes. I read the damn thing. Two extremes.
Just like scientific papers, these type of documents are easy to read once you understand the structure. And since we all are supposed to know the law, we surely, as a collective, have some remedial action to take .
A little help would have been nice. And Magacoin could have provided it without giving all the marbles away. But that's Magacoin for you. He means well and provided skyhooks for us to use.
Yes, indeed.
As towards ego, I personally think questions can help to weigh a certain narrative. This way, when confronted with the same, the answer given is one of personal conviction rather than echoing the opinion of other people, even though it may appear to sound good.
So, although, I personally find the framing of Magacoin's post to be pompous, (and thus written from an ego central point of view, to wit: I'll educate you, implying the reader to be failing and defective and in need of remedy, he has a point.
I feel this is a good thing.
I feel this too is a good thing. One, because Q has said so often, and two: questions are a very good device to highlight the issue.And you do not have to be a lawyer, as we are operating from the information given and contained within the rebuttal. We actually can use the legal mind of Sidney Powell to come to a conclusion.
I wrote this in another post:
SO, the piece of text fueling the echo chamber narrative is taken out of context and given a different spin.
A bit akin to how we normies regard the word theory. We often juxtapose theory with practice in real live. However, scientifically speaking, theory is nothing more than a set of reproducible explanations at the current time and subject to change when new evidence comes in.
The same happened with the word fact and reasonable person. Legally, fact is considered a supported by evidence determined finding. For us normies, facts are different. Our own reasons to call something a fact differ from person to person, and we often mix it up with truth.
And this is how the echo chamber press is playing people.
So, did Magacoin's post miss the mark? I think so, because we all are at a different point, dependent on time to read the rebuttal, understanding the reasoning, our knowledge of the subject matter to date.
Did the post encourage to spent some time to digest it? Yes and no, I think. Given your response, I would say, no. For me, yes. I read the damn thing. Two extremes.
Just like scientific papers, these type of documents are easy to read once you understand the structure. And since we all are supposed to know the law, we surely, as a collective, have some remedial action to take .
A little help would have been nice. And Magacoin could have provided it without giving all the marbles away. But that's Magacoin for you. He means well and provided skyhooks for us to use.