International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   "A warning", upcoming book by anonymous White House official (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=340180)

shemp 9th November 2019 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 12886451)
I fear I must disregard whatever it is you just said, anonymous stranger!

I find it easy to disregard everything Bob says.

Trebuchet 9th November 2019 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shemp (Post 12886516)
I find it easy to disregard everything Bob says.

I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!

Signed, Bob.

(There are a lot of us Bobs.)

shemp 9th November 2019 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 12886524)
I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!

Signed, Bob.

(There are a lot of us Bobs.)

But we're organized!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

CapelDodger 9th November 2019 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886130)
Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

Anonymous carries a lot less incredulity than Qanon.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 08:18 PM

Why would you accept the claims of someone who refuses to provide all the evidence to evaluate? Would you accept a claim in a physics journal that said it omitted information to prevent you from verifying it?

Stacyhs 9th November 2019 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886650)
Why would you accept the claims of someone who refuses to provide all the evidence to evaluate? Would you accept a claim in a physics journal that said it omitted information to prevent you from verifying it?

This isn't a science journal with peer reviews, Bob. It's the experiences of a senior WH official as verified by the NYT.

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs (Post 12886659)
This isn't a science journal with peer reviews, Bob. It's the experiences of a senior WH official as verified by the NYT.

I wouldn't accept a physics claim with hidden evidence. I'm not going to relax that standard for an editorial claim (by an editorial board. Not even by reporters)


Probably the biggest reason to not use a relaxed standard is the incredibly low stakes of these claims. Your acceptance of these claims likely has very little impact on your future actions.

Craig4 9th November 2019 09:35 PM

Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?

BobTheCoward 9th November 2019 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12886703)
Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?

They deny knowledge of it

https://money.cnn.com/2018/09/09/med...uet/index.html

Quote:

Even the paper's executive editor, Dean Baquet, doesn't know. That is how closely guarded the Times is being about protecting the writer's anonymity.

"That is the strength of the firewall" between the paper's news and editorial departments, Patrick Healy, the paper's politics editor, told CNN's Brian Stelter on "Reliable Sources" Sunday.
Which, if you are right, it means that the NYT politics editor is willing to go on the record and mislead about politics.

Stacyhs 10th November 2019 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886688)
I wouldn't accept a physics claim with hidden evidence. I'm not going to relax that standard for an editorial claim (by an editorial board. Not even by reporters)


Probably the biggest reason to not use a relaxed standard is the incredibly low stakes of these claims. Your acceptance of these claims likely has very little impact on your future actions.

So don't accept it. I'm not going to lose any sleep over what you accept or not.

CaptainHowdy 10th November 2019 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12886296)
Generally, it is. Unlike, say, Fox.

Fox and the NYT don't disagree with each other on the basic facts of the stories that they both report. It;s their interpretation those facts that is different.

Bob001 10th November 2019 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12886703)
Show of hands, does anyone think it likely that the reporters and editors at the New York Times, don't know who the senior Trump Administration staff are or that they'd publish a letter from someone without confirming the author's identity as one of them?


"The reporters and editors" would include over 1,000 people. It's a safe bet that most of them do NOT know who it is. But it's a certainty that the editor who decided to print it and whoever brought it to him DO know. Beyond that, they would do whatever they could to protect their source.

The Times itself says:
Quote:

The Op-Ed article was submitted to Times opinion editors last week through an intermediary, Mr. Dao said. “It was clear early on that the writer wanted anonymity, but we didn’t grant anything until we read it and we were confident that they were who they said they were,” he said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/r...-ed-trump.html

Craig4 10th November 2019 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob001 (Post 12886777)
"The reporters and editors" would include over 1,000 people. It's a safe bet that most of them do NOT know who it is. But it's a certainty that the editor who decided to print it and whoever brought it to him DO know. Beyond that, they would do whatever they could to protect their source.

The Times itself says:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/08/r...-ed-trump.html

No, but at the same time, I doubt only one reporter and/or editor made the decision.

varwoche 10th November 2019 06:19 AM

It's a bob sled ride! The season nears for such festivities.

BobTheCoward 10th November 2019 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig4 (Post 12886840)
No, but at the same time, I doubt only one reporter and/or editor made the decision.

It appears zero reporters or news editors were involved.

The Greater Fool 10th November 2019 07:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trebuchet (Post 12886524)
I'd never even see it if you morons didn't keep quoting him!

Signed, Bob.

(There are a lot of us Bobs.)

It seems every Tom, Dick, and Harry are named Bob.

alfaniner 10th November 2019 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool (Post 12886907)
It seems every Tom, Dick, and Harry are named Bob.

And your uncle.

Belz... 11th November 2019 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886130)
Anonymous carries as much credibility as Qanon.

Too obvious. I give this one a 3 out of 10.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 12886437)
This is why I rarely make claims of fact.

No, that's not why.

This is The End 6th January 2020 12:27 AM

oops sorry, mistake bump :D

Skeptic Ginger 6th January 2020 01:17 PM

I just skimmed (lightly) through the book. I could have written it (if I was a better writer). There just isn't much in there we didn't already know or could not have guessed. It ends with a campaign paragraph urging us not to reelect Trump.

I got a lot more out of "Plaintiff in Chief". That one had some detailed history.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.