Glen - > You can't *objectively* tell. That's the whole point. I guess my assumption is that in principle I *can* tell objectively but this level of propaganda (if that is what it is) is crafted to be *difficult* but not impossible. > But what you can do is check your impressions against those of others. My > personal impression is that this "article" is complete bullshit. I feel > *certain* that at least some of the people here, if they read the whole > article, will conclude the opposite. Assuming this is actually *crafted propaganda* rather than just *wrongheaded justification* I would like to believe that the *deliberate duplicity* would be exposable by inspection and then somewhat obvious in hindsight. And yes, this is how the TL;DR aspect would seem to contribute to it's opacity. > I won't list my bullshit triggers the article sets off. Bullshit replicates > exponentially faster and more efficient than its debunking. So my debunking > would be lost in the wind. But I can point to 1 easy step you can take: > > https://smmry.com/https://project-evidence.github.io/#&SM_LENGTH=10 > > Play around with the length. It's interesting. Yes, this is a very interesting "lens" into such a large corpus. Maybe I'll try pushing one of my long-winded posts in the archive through SMMRY and see if I recognize my own "harping".
Thanks, - Steve .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
