https://twitter.com/Biz_Shrink/status/1740790026802462918
Added: the apology is about her claim that Trump visited the Epstein pedo island once, in 1997.
But when I see this tweet she retweeted its possible she is a Zionist asset.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (149)
sorted by:
Here is your answer to your first question:
"Question 1: I do not believe she has any new ability to suddenly conclude this source is wrong, that she did not posses before being called out."
You do not believe.... What has belief to do with fact? What you are stating is an assumption that the does not have "any new ability to suddenly conclude this source is wrong, that she did not possess before being carried out." You present no justification for this assumption.
After 50 years spent in engineering, I have come to know the difference between facts and theories. You haven't.
Ah you are confusing my wording because I said "I believe" so Let me restate it.
"She did not receive any new information from any one on her tweet where everyone were pointing out that the blurred screen shot she attached was indeed from Florida to Newark"
Btw you still conveniently have not addressed why she would attach a blurred page of that if she actually based her post on a whistle blower info?
You know, that concern is independent of my first question so you can't try same weasel your way out of it. .
Yet you kept insisting it was an assumption. I guess in those 50 years of bliss, you failed to grasp the difference between theories and assumptions (and deductions for that matter).
Honestly, the best part about engaging with you is how you keep exposing yourself constantly.
Argue with yourself. Your first argumentative point in answer to your question #1 was an "I believe" that referred to her state of knowledge---which you couldn't possibly have known for a fact. That is an assumption. Now you are trying to wiggle out of it.
Theories based on assumptions need first to have the assumptions validated. You flunk.
As for your questions, puzzle on. They are of your own making. Ask her why or why not. You haven't shown why this is not simple trivia.
I know, I know, words confuse you. Even when it is restated.
I also agree that 50 years can be too short a time for some to grasp the difference between facts, assumptions, deductions and theories.
So here is the same restated into such tiny nibbles hat even you have to eat it, even if you choke it down.
Fact: No new information was given to her when people called her out on her tweet.
Fact: She apologised for being "called out" even when no new information was provided to her
Fact: She claimed there was a whistleblower who gave her information while she posted blurred image of the flight log that showed NEWARK and not Epstein Island. (You have weasled out of this point 4th time now)
Deduction: She was not being honest when she made the original tweet
Deduction: She was not being honest when she blamed it on the whistleblower
Deduction: She was not being honest with her apology.
You know what is an assumption, though?
Assumption: She is being honest when she apologised.
Assumption: That she is a truthful person in general.
You asked me to explain to you how to critically analyse her tweet and apology. To refresh your memory, you started this whole discussion with:
"You contend that some sort of meaning can be extracted from Jan Halper's apology and correction---beyond the obvious apology and correction. I'm all ears. Please elucidate."
I am elucidating you. I am teaching you how to do critical analysis and extract the meaning. You wont get answers if you refuse to ask questions 🤣
But just because you want to remain ignorant does not mean everyone else needs to be as well.
Eagerly waiting to see what kind of gaslighting you will come up with next. At least Jan Halper had the decency to do a fake apology when called out.
So, how do you know your first "fact" is indeed factual? That seems entirely out of synch with her apology. What is important is not that the information was "not new," but that it was new to her. (Was it? You don't know.) And your second "fact" is only an appendage to the first "fact." These are both conclusions you have leaped to without any evidence.
The third "fact": I'm not "weaseling" out of anything. I don't have any knowledge of her previous post. You are assuming facts not in evidence, regarding what I know. Nothing in what you say that wouldn't be the result of sloppiness, not prevarication.
The going-in position for all testimony (particularly in court) is to take the testator at their word---unless there is evidence to the contrary. There is no evidence to the contrary, or you would have cited it. I don't know of any evidence that she has lied in the past, nor do you bring up any. Moreover, a mistaken statement made in good faith is not a lie, but a mistake.
You are not "teaching" me anything. I have in my time solved a number of puzzling technical questions (e.g., "Why does this fast igniter result in slow ignition?") which required close and careful thinking, because reality doesn't lie. I have a backlog of 40 years of technical analysis that my colleagues have all recognized as being first rate. So, don't waste my time or yours by talking down to me over what is or is not an assumption, when all you have demonstrated is your propensity to shoot first and not ask questions later.