--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> authfriend wrote: > >> > >>> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> authfriend wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>> <snip> > >>> > >>> > >>>>> Not that this isn't all horrendously dire, but it really > >>>>> doesn't help to exaggerate it. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Or maybe it does. I've said before it's a tug-a-war and > >>>> sometimes you have to exaggerate to win or just pull > >>>> things back into reason. > >>>> > >>> It's *way more* than bad enough to do that just by > >>> reporting it accurately. That's my point. > >>> > >> It's not necessarily about exaggeration either. In this > >> case even I heard that by a number of credible sources the > >> rig fell on the well. How do you know that what you read > >> was *not* propaganda from BP or the oil bastards > > > > You mean, the article titled "Mother of all gushers > > could kill Earths oceans" could be propaganda from BP > > or the oil bastards? > > No, these were calls from folks who work in that industry > and know what is going on. Sometimes you have to fight > fire with fire.
Man, sometimes you can be dense! The "Mother of all gushers" article was the one in which the references to the rig falling on the well were *crossed out* because they were inaccurate. This is on a Web site that promotes alternative sources of energy; it's anti- Big Oil. That's how I know it wasn't BP propaganda. > > Maybe you want to go back and read my post again... > > > I'm not concerned enough to bother. My discussion anyway > is about casual talk and abstract discussion. Common sense is always good. > > Actually, what you should have learned is that your > > sources weren't as credible as you assumed, at least > > on that point. > > > > Do you have any idea how big that rig was? The idea > > that it would have sunk a mile straight down through > > the ocean and landed neatly on top of the wellhead > > makes no sense just on its face. It's not like > > dropping a pebble into a pond. > > > You mean like the twin towers should have fallen over > rather than on their footprint? They sank in the ocean? Come on, man! Use the old bean! > >>> What you really need to do is build *trust* by being > >>> scrupulously accurate and doing your bit to debunk > >>> unrealistic alarmism. Then folks are much more likely > >>> to pay attention to your recommendations, rather than > >>> dismissing them out of hand. > >>> > >> Why is it so important for someone to have folks *pay > >> attention* to their recommendations? Is it about > >> *the ego?* > > > > First you say you need to exaggerate to get people's > > attention, now you say their attention isn't important > > and it's egotistical to want it. Better do a little > > rethinking here... > > No, it's to *counter* the propaganda. That has nothing > to do with ego. But being concerned about your position > does. Sometimes we just throw out things for the sake of > argument. "Here's the real skinny, don't listen to their propaganda" is what I'd call a recommendation. That's the whole point. If you distort and exaggerate instead of giving the real skinny, folks aren't going to trust you when you say the oil bastards are distorting and exaggerating.
