In message 
<[log in to unmask]>, 
"Heasman, David" <[log in to unmask]> writes

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Roy Brown [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
><[log in to unmask]> writes

>>>It's always been my impression that when everyone is else is wrong, or
>>>that it's clear that they are "purposefully intending on deceiving
>>>you," and only you know the truth, then it may well be time to seek
>>>professional help.
>>Well, it worked for Galileo....

> That's the one they always use. There was a spate of 
>relativity-deniers in the 60s,  there are anti-evolutionists nowadays, 
>and the example they all use  (M Behe in the Guardian was a recent one) 
>is one incredibly combative, if correct, guy from 400 years ago.  Who 
>had the world's scientists on his side. (there just weren't that many 
>of them)

Since when was I 'they'?

But if you'd like a couple of examples closer to home, ask yourself if 
you think we know, or will ever know, the truth about the death of Dr 
David Kelly.

Ask yourself also if you knew who the Soham murderers were days before 
Huntley was charged. (Sometimes the press just can't print what they 
surely know.)

And finally - in both the UK and the US - ask yourself when you stopped 
believing in the WMD - if you ever did believe, or ever have stopped 
believing. Then ask yourself the same question about the position of the 
media on WMD, and just how much later on they went quiet about it than 
was sensible.

I was surprised, though that Wirt said what he did. After all, you will 
note that his position on Iraq is seemingly a minority one (even though 
it's one I share) - and yet Shawn Gordon of the Kompany awarded it the 
same tinfoil hat that he awarded James Byrne's contribution, even though 
they are clearly from two diametrically opposed clans.

But if you simply read Wirt's comment above, and start replying to it, 
or attempting to (as I did with the Galileo comment), then you have 
already bought the dummy he is trying to sell you here. You have to go 
back a step, and say 'Hang on, what questionable things is this wily fox 
trying to slip past us unchallenged here?

Let's do an in-depth analysis - a phrase beloved of the media - on that 
sentence of his, phrase by phrase:

>It's always been my impression that

Sounds reasonable enough to begin with...but....

>when everyone is else is wrong

Woah. Did anyone, least of all Denys, say that *everyone* else is wrong? 
And surely even the most Left- or Right- wing nut has other nuts who 
agree with him?

>or that it's clear that they are "purposefully intending on deceiving
>you,"

This looks like a quote from a posting. After all, it's in quote marks. 
And the phrasing is unusual enough for it to have had to have been a 
fairly specific quote.

But who said it? When? Searching all the open postings on the HP3000-L, 
let alone just this thread (which I have going back to Wirt's original 
posting on 5th October) nobody said it until Wirt did. And even Google 
is stumped:
>Your search - "purposefully intending on deceiving you" - did not match 
>any documents.

So who, or what, is Wirt quoting? Are we supposed to think that Denys 
said it? Hmmm.

>and only you know the truth

Woah again. Did anyone, least of all Denys, say that only he knew the 
truth? In fact, he specifically said the opposite:

>> I try not to use phrases like "the truth" as others do, because 
>>unfortunately that may be subjective.  If I tell you that what I am 
>>telling you is the truth, run far, run fast.

>then it may well be time to seek professional help.

Well, one could challenge this conclusion anyway, as I did. After all, 
it's hardly professional medical advice.

But as far as I can see, the only thing that has been doctored here is 
the underlying premises :-)
-- 
Roy Brown        'Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be
Kelmscott Ltd     useful, or believe to be beautiful'  William Morris

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *