The truth seen through your eyes is not always the truth seen through another’s eyes.
And there lie’s the problem.
4 Likes
Actually I didn’t read her response as being ‘nasty’ as you put it at all.
I thought your use of the word was ‘nasty’ in fact.
Which just goes to show how differently we all perceive things! 
1 Like
Well I am with @IzzyM I thought it was a nasty response,and I thought Izzy was right to point it out
1 Like
Exactly, we all see stuff differently.
But to stop there is a counsel of despair: let everybody build their own ivory tower, untouched by argument or evidence.
Discussion between different views has always been regarded as a way to establish truth (or at least it has since the ‘socratic dialogues’) - which is precisely why I addressed the matters of fact in the OP and didn’t get into any of that nationalistic nonsense, which is a distraction.
The real problem here is that some people when confronted by a rational or evidential challenge to their prejudice as to what is ‘true’, react with personal attacks (or generalised-personal attacks on ‘people in their rose coloured specs’ etc,) instead of actually focusing on the argument or evidence that others have introduced.
As to Kirstea’s post - I think some mistook it’s understandable exasperation (understandable precisely because all the mistakes in the OP had already been comprehensively dismantled in other SF threads) - and it had, if you read it again carefully, a nice very elegant argument, pointing out the self-defeating logic of previous posts - which is why I ‘liked’ it.
4 Likes
Ah, Geof, it is good to have someone with your wisdom on this site. Someone who can see through life’s conundrums, or even conundra, and show us less well-informed mortals where the truth really lies. You could start your own thread, give it a catchy title, say Pravda, and then give us the truth on all matters - the moon landings, 9-11, the Kennedy assassination, the authentic Bolognese recipe.
2 Likes
The issue is Geof that you prefer your own “facts” to real facts with your own prejudicial slant placed on them.
And Kirstea’s post was an attack on Sue not a response to the OP.
1 Like
The real problem here is that some people, when confronted by a rational or evidential challenge to their prejudice as to what is ‘true’, react with personal attacks (or generalised-personal attacks on ‘people in their rose coloured specs’ etc,) instead of actually focusing on the argument or evidence that others have introduced.
In your opinion. Just because you (or anyone else for that matter) believes something, doesn’t make it true.
1 Like
As the last two posts directed at Geoff have been ‘snidey’ (for want of a better word), I’m closing this thread for the time being. Well done.
1 Like