Continuation The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Of course I know the difference. I have NVQ4 in both business tax and personal tax. Plus a VAT specific one. Not to mention financial strategy as part of my fully chartered qualification. I have submitted tax returns and filed accounts hundreds of times, including TOMS and EC sales lists

You don't know the difference between Revenues and net profit.

Fact is coca-cola remains near top http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca...brands-ranking

My source is Mark Thomas, who did a whole comedy tour of the UK about Coca-Cola and its practices. I have his book which gives the low down, which is how I know Coca-Cola's profits are greater than Mexico's debt to IMF.

https://youtu.be/LH0r84W3LgU

For the avoidance of doubt, how does this tie in with Amanda Knox? Her father knew the value of PR and advertising - coca-cola is branded by its tin! - and paid an advertising agency to promote her phony case even before he hired a lawyer.

So Staceyhs claim that there is no such thing as manipulation of statements and that 'statement analysis' is a 'pseudo science' is pure bunkum.

There you go again, claiming I said something I never said. I have never said there "is no such thing as manipulation of statements". I said that statement analysis is a pseudoscience. I said that Statement analysis is not advertising. For the second time:

Quote:

Statement analysis, also called investigative discourse analysis and scientific content analysis (SCAN), is a technique for analyzing the words people use to try to determine if what they said is accurate.

Advertising is the art of getting people to buy an idea or a good. It is all about persuasion. It is NOT about determining if what people say is accurate. Please stop making thing up.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

There you go again, claiming I said something I never said. I have never said there "is no such thing as manipulation of statements". I said that statement analysis is a pseudoscience. I said that Statement analysis is not advertising. For the second time:



Advertising is the art of getting people to buy an idea or a good. It is all about persuasion. It is NOT about determining if what people say is accurate. Please stop making thing up.

It follows that statement analysis can weed out the lies little 'persuasions'.

Seriously, what is the difference between advertising/PR and sending out 'memes' to persuade the public a person accused of murder has been 'railroaded' / 'interrogated for 53 hours' , etc.

Given we can pick up on these totally false 'press releases' by 'PR agents' (and we have seen how fantastically successful advertising is when we look at Coca-cola or even Nike - which in effect, is merely a logo) then it is clear statement analysis is not a 'pseudo science'.

How easily are you persuaded by advertising? I would guess a lot given how readily you slurp up the Knox PR. I am willing to bet you scoured the 'Black Friday' deals, am I correct?

My advice to you is, for one day - just one day - try to resist the advertisers messages. Ignore the columnist who wants to persuade you Knox was beaten up by the police, that's why she blurted out Patrick's name. Ignore all the advertisers. Let's see how long you can last out without capitulating and buying Coca-Cola instead of the store's own brand.

Then come back and tell us that there is no such science as 'statement analysis'. If you can do it, it exists.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I don't know how you feel qualified to even discuss this case when you don't even know basic Italian law.

After all these years, you have no idea that Italian attorneys are obliged to report abuse of their clients by police.

Your knowledge of Italian law comes straight from this case, the same as mine. Do not imply that you are some sort of expert on Italian law. You aren't.

You have still failed to come up with a citation stating that by law "Italian attorneys are obliged to report abuse of their clients by police".

There well may be such a law as I don't know if there is or not. I asked for a citation. However, wouldn't such a law violate attorney client confidentiality/privilege? What if the client and the lawyer feel making this known would hurt their case? Is the lawyer still obligated to report it?
But that is not the point. The point is that you made this claim as a fact. I asked for a citation...3 times. You have still failed to produce such a law which, from past actions of yours, usually means you cannot produce it.

This is easily settled. Produce said law or admit you cannot.

[snoop_doxie]

What is your evidence that statement analysis exists and/or is an effective tool to use investigating a murder?

Please leave out the comparison to advertising, it destroys your argument that statement analysis is not pseudo science.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by snoop_doxie

What is your evidence that statement analysis exists and/or is an effective tool to use investigating a murder?

Please leave out the comparison to advertising, it destroys your argument that statement analysis is not pseudo science.

Statement Analysis is a police tool akin to a polygraph. It is used, but there are good ressons why their results are inadmissible in court.

In Canada there was a case where the sole reason a man had been charged was when the cop cited his own statement analysis training. The whole thing was promptly thrown out.

Statement Analysis has its place. Online prognosticators are not one of them.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It follows that statement analysis can weed out the lies little 'persuasions'.

Not necessarily. When a face cream advertisement says "Crows feet and little lines may appear smaller within minutes", they aren't lying but they are trying to persuade the consumer to assume they will. The word "may" is crucial as are the words "appear" and "smaller", both of whom are subjective.

Originally Posted by Vixen

Seriously, what is the difference between advertising/PR and sending out 'memes' to persuade the public a person accused of murder has been 'railroaded' / 'interrogated for 53 hours' , etc.

What has that got to do with statement analysis which, once again, is intended to determine truth from falsehoods? It is not advertising or PR. The "53 hours of interrogation" is from the Knox appeal document submitted to the court. No court or prosecutor ever contradicted that number. Or do you think the defense lawyers did not have access to the police records?

Originally Posted by Vixen

Given we can pick up on these totally false 'press releases' by 'PR agents' (and we have seen how fantastically successful advertising is when we look at Coca-cola or even Nike - which in effect, is merely a logo) then it is clear statement analysis is not a 'pseudo science'.

Speaking of totally false "press releases", let's discuss the police leaking the picture of the "bathroom covered in blood", the "running washing machine", the "I was there", the "bleach receipt", the "Sollecito's bloody shoeprints",and the "German Harry Potter book" lies, shall we?

The advertising of Coke and Nike are not statement analysis. It is advertising:

Quote:

To describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance:

It is NOT to determine truth from falsehoods in a statement. Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?

Originally Posted by Vixen

How easily are you persuaded by advertising? I would guess a lot given how readily you slurp up the Knox PR. I am willing to bet you scoured the 'Black Friday' deals, am I correct?

Guess again. Speaking of slurping up PR, take a look at the TJMK trough.

Originally Posted by Vixen

My advice to you is, for one day - just one day - try to resist the advertisers messages. Ignore the columnist who wants to persuade you Knox was beaten up by the police, that's why she blurted out Patrick's name. Ignore all the advertisers. Let's see how long you can last out without capitulating and buying Coca-Cola instead of the store's own brand.

Then come back and tell us that there is no such science as 'statement analysis'. If you can do it, it exists.

Ew. I can't stand Coke or any other soda. Never drink any of it. I much prefer a sparkling water with a hint of fruit flavor.
As for my ability to withstand obvious junk PR, I've withstood the nonsense and lies being put out by TJMK, PMF and TMofMK for the last 9+ years.

Once you understand that statement analysis and advertising are not the same thing as per their very definitions, come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, see if you can find that Italian law that requires lawyers to report any abuse of their clients.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

It follows that statement analysis can weed out the lies little 'persuasions'.

Seriously, what is the difference between advertising/PR and sending out 'memes' to persuade the public a person accused of murder has been 'railroaded' / 'interrogated for 53 hours' , etc.

Given we can pick up on these totally false 'press releases' by 'PR agents' (and we have seen how fantastically successful advertising is when we look at Coca-cola or even Nike - which in effect, is merely a logo) then it is clear statement analysis is not a 'pseudo science'.

How easily are you persuaded by advertising? I would guess a lot given how readily you slurp up the Knox PR. I am willing to bet you scoured the 'Black Friday' deals, am I correct?

My advice to you is, for one day - just one day - try to resist the advertisers messages. Ignore the columnist who wants to persuade you Knox was beaten up by the police, that's why she blurted out Patrick's name. Ignore all the advertisers. Let's see how long you can last out without capitulating and buying Coca-Cola instead of the store's own brand.

Then come back and tell us that there is no such science as 'statement analysis'. If you can do it, it exists.

Yet you continue to cite from TJMK and the fake wiki, both of which represent guilter PR.

How many times must it be stated that no one has ever claimed Amanda was "beaten up" by the police? It's an interesting way to argue for a 'Knox PR campaign'... you either make something up or you copy it from a guilter PR site and then accuse 'Knox PR' of making the claim. Odd indeed...

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Not necessarily. When a face cream advertisement says "Crows feet and little lines may appear smaller within minutes", they aren't lying but they are trying to persuade the consumer to assume they will. The word "may" is crucial as are the words "appear" and "smaller", both of whom are subjective.



What has that got to do with statement analysis which, once again, is intended to determine truth from falsehoods? It is not advertising or PR. The "53 hours of interrogation" is from the Knox appeal document submitted to the court. No court or prosecutor ever contradicted that number. Or do you think the defense lawyers did not have access to the police records?



Speaking of totally false "press releases", let's discuss the police leaking the picture of the "bathroom covered in blood", the "running washing machine", the "I was there", the "bleach receipt", the "Sollecito's bloody shoeprints",and the "German Harry Potter book" lies, shall we?

The advertising of Coke and Nike are not statement analysis. It is advertising:



It is NOT to determine truth from falsehoods in a statement. Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?



Guess again. Speaking of slurping up PR, take a look at the TJMK trough.





Ew. I can't stand Coke or any other soda. Never drink any of it. I much prefer a sparkling water with a hint of fruit flavor.
As for my ability to withstand obvious junk PR, I've withstood the nonsense and lies being put out by TJMK, PMF and TMofMK for the last 9+ years.

Once you understand that statement analysis and advertising are not the same thing as per their very definitions, come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, see if you can find that Italian law that requires lawyers to report any abuse of their clients.

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

[bagels]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

A better question is who are you convincing of anything because it's certainly not anybody on this forum with your dumb arguments and conspiracy theories.

[TruthCalls]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

To quote Stacy;

Speaking of totally false "press releases", let's discuss the police leaking the picture of the "bathroom covered in blood", the "running washing machine", the "I was there", the "bleach receipt", the "Sollecito's bloody shoeprints",and the "German Harry Potter book" lies, shall we?

Of course, we could also break out the thousands of bogus articles written over the years or merely point you back to TJMK or the fake wiki... you're heart is in the right place but it's currently misplaced. The phony PR is coming from your side - it always has.

Stacy is also correct that Advertising and Statement Analysis are entirely different. Talk about not being able to grasp even the simple concepts. Statement analysis seeks to determine whether what has been spoken or written is true or false; advertising is an effort to get you to believe or desire something. You could say you could use statement analysis to determine if an advertisement is true or not, but you didn't say that. And while that would be the 'intent' of statement analysis, whether it actually works and is recognized as a valid science is another matter entirely.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

Oh right. So go ahead and "demonstrably prove" all of that to us, won't you? Don't forget, in the course of doing so, that you're claiming that "demonstrable proof" exists that:

Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches. (my bolding for emphasis)



*gets popcorn*

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

No, what is stupid is being given the definition of both terms and not being able to comprehend that they are not the same thing. This is just indicative of your inability to ever, ever admit when you are wrong. You'll even argue with the accepted dictionary definitions!

No, it is not a fact that any of what you claim is true so stop using "the fact is" when it's not. What you just alleged is a vast conspiracy with respected and world renowned scientists, forensic experts, and award winning/best selling journalists all colluding to subvert justice in a foreign country for a girl none of them had ever heard of before Nov. 2007. And what is really scary? That you believe it.

May I suggest you stop arguing this as you have clearly lost and instead spend some time looking for that "law" you claim exists? Or shall we just consign it to the ever growing mountain of your claims you can't prove?

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Oh right. So go ahead and "demonstrably prove" all of that to us, won't you? Don't forget, in the course of doing so, that you're claiming that "demonstrable proof" exists that:

Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches. (my bolding for emphasis)



*gets popcorn*

Move over. I'll bring my own popcorn. No worries.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

Your "knowledge" of all this area is as made-up as your "knowledge" of physics and ballistics.

Other statements made by you within posts on these matters today indicate that you don't even know/understand the difference between a logo and a brand (hint: Nike, to take your example, has built a brand with a whole range of brand values, and the Nike logo is but one (readily-recognisable) way for Nike to project its brand values). You don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, to go back to the incorrect statement in your quote above, you are apparently ignorantly supposing that all attempts to persuade (no inverted commas necessary) are necessarily attempts to deceive or misdirect. To take a simplistic example to illustrate your level of wrong: often the makers of a new washing detergent will use advertising and marketing strategies to try to persuade consumers that this detergent is more effective at cleaning clothes than any other rival detergent....... and this will in fact be an honest and true claim (in fact, in the UK the advertising standards authority has an explicit remit to enforce this sort of behaviour).

And that leads us on to Knox (in particular) and her legal/PR strategy. It's now abundantly clear (IMO, judging by your words...) that you are (to say the least) highly suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context; and it's more than abundantly clear that you can only interpret Knox's legal/PR efforts as a knowing attempt to deceive (and, in your world, to attempt to pervert justice into the bargain). It appears impossible for you to even conceive of the notion that Knox and her lawyers and PR company might be trying to persuade from a position of truth and honesty. Because your position on this is ignorant and biassed. Amirite?

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Your "knowledge" of all this area is as made-up as your "knowledge" of physics and ballistics.

Other statements made by you within posts on these matters today indicate that you don't even know/understand the difference between a logo and a brand (hint: Nike, to take your example, has built a brand with a whole range of brand values, and the Nike logo is but one (readily-recognisable) way for Nike to project its brand values). You don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, to go back to the incorrect statement in your quote above, you are apparently ignorantly supposing that all attempts to persuade (no inverted commas necessary) are necessarily attempts to deceive or misdirect. To take a simplistic example to illustrate your level of wrong: often the makers of a new washing detergent will use advertising and marketing strategies to try to persuade consumers that this detergent is more effective at cleaning clothes than any other rival detergent....... and this will in fact be an honest and true claim (in fact, in the UK the advertising standards authority has an explicit remit to enforce this sort of behaviour).

And that leads us on to Knox (in particular) and her legal/PR strategy. It's now abundantly clear (IMO, judging by your words...) that you are (to say the least) highly suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context; and it's more than abundantly clear that you can only interpret Knox's legal/PR efforts as a knowing attempt to deceive (and, in your world, to attempt to pervert justice into the bargain). It appears impossible for you to even conceive of the notion that Knox and her lawyers and PR company might be trying to persuade from a position of truth and honesty. Because your position on this is ignorant and biassed. Amirite?

Giuliano Mignini recently tried to "persuade", or more properly persuade (without the quotes) the Italian court system that Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel had criminally defamed him, as well as civilly defamed him.

What we know at this point is that that persuasion, or "persuasion", seems to have failed. The judge adjudicating the criminal part of this allegation threw it out. Mignini himself abandoned his civil suit against the pair.

Out of all the times one might wish to be suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context, why is it that Vixen s not suspicious of a seemingly failed attempt to persuade a court?

There's a promise out there by these folk, now two weeks' overdue, that all of that had been as part of a bargain in which Sollecito and Gumbel would simply, formally apologize for the alleged offending claims. That apology is overdue, and make one additionally suspicious that this group of conspiracists simply make stuff up as they go.

Maybe Vixen would have better luck evaluating her concerns about bad-PR outlets by turning her understanding of Statement Analysis on to places like TJMK and the fake-Wiki.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Your "knowledge" of all this area is as made-up as your "knowledge" of physics and ballistics.

Other statements made by you within posts on these matters today indicate that you don't even know/understand the difference between a logo and a brand (hint: Nike, to take your example, has built a brand with a whole range of brand values, and the Nike logo is but one (readily-recognisable) way for Nike to project its brand values). You don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, to go back to the incorrect statement in your quote above, you are apparently ignorantly supposing that all attempts to persuade (no inverted commas necessary) are necessarily attempts to deceive or misdirect. To take a simplistic example to illustrate your level of wrong: often the makers of a new washing detergent will use advertising and marketing strategies to try to persuade consumers that this detergent is more effective at cleaning clothes than any other rival detergent....... and this will in fact be an honest and true claim (in fact, in the UK the advertising standards authority has an explicit remit to enforce this sort of behaviour).

And that leads us on to Knox (in particular) and her legal/PR strategy. It's now abundantly clear (IMO, judging by your words...) that you are (to say the least) highly suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context; and it's more than abundantly clear that you can only interpret Knox's legal/PR efforts as a knowing attempt to deceive (and, in your world, to attempt to pervert justice into the bargain). It appears impossible for you to even conceive of the notion that Knox and her lawyers and PR company might be trying to persuade from a position of truth and honesty. Because your position on this is ignorant and biassed. Amirite?

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

Giuliano Mignini recently tried to "persuade", or more properly persuade (without the quotes) the Italian court system that Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel had criminally defamed him, as well as civilly defamed him.

What we know at this point is that that persuasion, or "persuasion", seems to have failed. The judge adjudicating the criminal part of this allegation threw it out. Mignini himself abandoned his civil suit against the pair.

Out of all the times one might wish to be suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context, why is it that Vixen s not suspicious of a seemingly failed attempt to persuade a court?

There's a promise out there by these folk, now two weeks' overdue, that all of that had been as part of a bargain in which Sollecito and Gumbel would simply, formally apologize for the alleged offending claims. That apology is overdue, and make one additionally suspicious that this group of conspiracists simply make stuff up as they go.

Maybe Vixen would have better luck evaluating her concerns about bad-PR outlets by turning her understanding of Statement Analysis on to places like TJMK and the fake-Wiki.

When two parties are in dispute and they have to take it to an arbitrator, then of course each will need to put forward their case, and the arbitrator/judge decides whose argument is the stronger, or more closely aligned with the rules/law.

Ditto in a criminal court. The prosecution is obliged to explain why they consider the defendant culpable, and the defendant has the platform to defend themself.

A court of law is the correct place to do this. Not through an advertising/PR agency.

This is because in a court of law, ALL parties are entitled to have DISCLOSURE of ALL the evidence. Advertisers will conceal or play down the bad points and will not disclose that a competitior is superior. A court of law is TRANSPARENT. It is open to the public and submissions to the court can be made under legal privilege. A party cannot tamper with the witnesses or the evidence, nor seek to subvert the course of justice.

A PR agency acting for a defendant charged with murder has no such compunctions. They will seek to undermine the case of the other party and to deliberately mislead in order to get their client off the hook.

[bagels]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.

I can't tell if this is brilliant irony seeing as advertising and PR is what allowed a bumbling Italian police department to turn a mistake with a crime where a local burglar raped and murdered a student in her own home into a world wide sensation about a random American girl on the cover of every tabloid in the world next to pictures of evidence wrapped giant cleavers and bloody crime scenes.

The prosecution's presentation fooled a lot of people (such as yourself) hook line and sinker.

People that actually stop and take moment to think, like for example Grinder, looked at the initial press conference on the 6th (before anything was done by anyone) and went, wait...what they're saying isn't adding up...

Meanwhile this is what people do who consume whatever slop is shoved into their brain without thought:

Quote:

Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.

It would be an interesting exercise to apply Statement Analysis to the tirade quoted above.

Take the first three sentences as a starting point:

Unlike you, I have a business qualification.

Statement Analysis says: how does the person making the tirade know this about the other? For me, a reader unfamiliar with the "expertise" of either of the verbal combatants, there's no basis for saying, "Unlike you," unless it was missed.

I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works.

Statement Analysis says: given that the first sentence only mentions the broad occupation of "business", and makes no mention of the level of "qualification" achieved, on what basis is the first sentence connected to the second? Statement Analysis would make note that the person making the tirade has not remotely established credentials in making the additional statement, "I am willing to bet...."

You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo.

Statement Analysis says: this is a bewildering sentence, as it is factual that any objective reader thought he/she was being set up for a claim, "If you think Nike is limited to being a mere logo." After thinking that that was what the person making the tirade was going to say, she shifts counter-intuitively to claiming that Nike is/was a "mere logo".

Indeed, if the statement Vixen makes is true, she should be in touch immediately with all Nike shareholders who have bet their portfolios that Nike is something MORE than a logo.

Yet the Statement Analysts gathered around the iPad here agree on one thing - the person making the tirade is simply pounding out expert-like gobble-dee-gook, trying to sound like she knows what she's taking about, in an area that she, by her own admission, only has a "business qualification". Such claim does not remotely indicate any expertise in advertising or PR.

So sez Statement Analysis.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Oh right. So go ahead and "demonstrably prove" all of that to us, won't you? Don't forget, in the course of doing so, that you're claiming that "demonstrable proof" exists that:

Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches. (my bolding for emphasis)



*gets popcorn*

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by bagels

I can't tell if this is brilliant irony seeing as advertising and PR is what allowed a bumbling Italian police department to turn a mistake with a crime where a local burglar raped and murdered a student in her own home into a world wide sensation about a random American girl on the cover of every tabloid in the world next to pictures of evidence wrapped giant cleavers and bloody crime scenes.

The prosecution's presentation fooled a lot of people (such as yourself) hook line and sinker.

People that actually stop and take moment to think, like for example Grinder, looked at the initial press conference on the 6th (before anything was done by anyone) and went, wait...what they're saying isn't adding up...

Meanwhile this is what people do who consume whatever slop is shoved into their brain without thought:

I miss Grinder.

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

LOL!

Nick van der Leek has been accused of plagiarism from all quarters. His Amazon account was suspended until he rectified one accusation. Then again, I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring up his name after his embarrassing foray into ISF here.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by bagels

I can't tell if this is brilliant irony seeing as advertising and PR is what allowed a bumbling Italian police department to turn a mistake with a crime where a local burglar raped and murdered a student in her own home into a world wide sensation about a random American girl on the cover of every tabloid in the world next to pictures of evidence wrapped giant cleavers and bloody crime scenes.

The prosecution's presentation fooled a lot of people (such as yourself) hook line and sinker.

People that actually stop and take moment to think, like for example Grinder, looked at the initial press conference on the 6th (before anything was done by anyone) and went, wait...what they're saying isn't adding up...

Meanwhile this is what people do who consume whatever slop is shoved into their brain without thought:

Yup. Well, I'd append your position somewhat. The incompetent and mendacious police and prosecutors in this case (who had their own special reasons to act in that way) found extraordinarily willing accomplices in the media, especially in Italy and the UK. The notion of a young, pretty American exchange student teaming up with her boyfriend (whom she has wrapped around her little finger....) and a willing black guy to torture, sexually assault and murder a young, pretty English exchange student with whom she shared a house, over something related to a mixture of jealousy and extreme sexual/psychotic perversions, is manna from heaven to certain sections of the media. And, by sad extension, to a large proportion of the public who consume those media. And here they had the official mandate to cut loose with the most lurid, graphic tales along those lines, fed constantly by corrupt police and prosecutors with "evidence" that was either grossly misrepresented or flat-out invented.

What happened in this sad case - which in reality was nothing other than a single man breaking into an empty house with the intention of burgling it, then being interrupted by a lone girl arriving home, then getting into a confrontation which ignited overpowering urges of lust and control within the man, which led to the sexual assault and murder of the woman - was something of a perfect storm of incompetent/deceptive police/prosecutors, a media who were desperate to buy the narrative of "Foxy Knoxy sex games gone bad" etc, and a public who got some sort of rush from reading those sorts of stories (coupled, in many instances, with associated urges towards retribution and punishment).

So, as you say, the massive irony is that the very thing Vixen accuses pro-acquittal commentators of - the wholesale uncritical swallowing of a particular version of events, on the back of a barrage of "persuasion" through multiple parallel channels, and with hints of some form of lust or admiration thrown in for good measure - is EXACTLY the thing which was thrown at willing, gullible and uncritical sections of the public via the willing, gullible and uncritical media coverage of this case. A tiny proportion of whom evolved into the pro-guilt squad......

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

I'm asking you to provide this alleged "proof" here, Vixen. And most certainly not via that steaming piece of bat guano that is the "book" "published" by dilettante ignoramus-with-an-agenda vdLeek . OK?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Bill Williams

It would be an interesting exercise to apply Statement Analysis to the tirade quoted above.

Take the first three sentences as a starting point:

Unlike you, I have a business qualification.

Statement Analysis says: how does the person making the tirade know this about the other? For me, a reader unfamiliar with the "expertise" of either of the verbal combatants, there's no basis for saying, "Unlike you," unless it was missed.

I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works.

Statement Analysis says: given that the first sentence only mentions the broad occupation of "business", and makes no mention of the level of "qualification" achieved, on what basis is the first sentence connected to the second? Statement Analysis would make note that the person making the tirade has not remotely established credentials in making the additional statement, "I am willing to bet...."

You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo.

Statement Analysis says: this is a bewildering sentence, as it is factual that any objective reader thought he/she was being set up for a claim, "If you think Nike is limited to being a mere logo." After thinking that that was what the person making the tirade was going to say, she shifts counter-intuitively to claiming that Nike is/was a "mere logo".

Indeed, if the statement Vixen makes is true, she should be in touch immediately with all Nike shareholders who have bet their portfolios that Nike is something MORE than a logo.

Yet the Statement Analysts gathered around the iPad here agree on one thing - the person making the tirade is simply pounding out expert-like gobble-dee-gook, trying to sound like she knows what she's taking about, in an area that she, by her own admission, only has a "business qualification". Such claim does not remotely indicate any expertise in advertising or PR.

So sez Statement Analysis.

Yes. It's all really quite pathetic (in the original sense of the word) as much as anything else. We're back in the sad old world of beating chess grand masters and being top of the class, and all that crap. Mannnnn I despise intellectual dishonesty on that scale. It really does stifle any attempt at reasonable debate and discussion.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

Yes. It's all really quite pathetic (in the original sense of the word) as much as anything else. We're back in the sad old world of beating chess grand masters and being top of the class, and all that crap. Mannnnn I despise intellectual dishonesty on that scale. It really does stifle any attempt at reasonable debate and discussion.

If Planigale and you insist in personalising your comments towards me, I will of course exercise my right of reply and defend myself.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If Planigale and you insist in personalising your comments towards me, I will of course exercise my right of reply and defend myself.

*ahem* Remember the words below, Vixen? Hint: you wrote them, personalising your comments towards me, within the past hour! (I've bolded the personalisation/attacking bits for your appreciation):

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.


Any pots and kettles spring into your mind, Vixen..........?

[LondonJohn]

By the way, how are you coming along with providing the "demonstrable proof" of all those (extreme) claims you made within this very thread this very evening, Vixen? We're all waiting, I wager

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

*ahem* Remember the words below, Vixen? Hint: you wrote them, personalising your comments towards me, within the past hour! (I've bolded the personalisation/attacking bits for your appreciation):

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.


Any pots and kettles spring into your mind, Vixen..........?

This is fair comment within the context of the argument (being Stacyhs' assertion that 'statement analysis' is pseudo science). If you believe statement analysis cannot identify manipulation, persuasion and lies designed to deceive, then it is fair comment that you are an advertisers' dream and a sucker for hoax innocence campaigns, based on PR/advertising techniques. I see nothing personal there.

It isn't fair comment to claim, as Planigale did, from nowhere and apropos of nothing that as a professional accountant, I don't know the difference between zero and exempt VAT. What? That is a professional slur.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should we read a "good" book on the subject or van der Leek?

Name one credible book (so that excludes Nickie) has ever stated any of the following:

"Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches."

Go ahead. Name one.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by LondonJohn

By the way, how are you coming along with providing the "demonstrable proof" of all those (extreme) claims you made within this very thread this very evening, Vixen? We're all waiting, I wager

You can find a very good cataloguing of demonstrable proof of all the lies on this site here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Or, go direct to court documents: Crini spells out in detail how Knox and Sollecito's alibis are actively fake.

Why would someone charged with a serious murder come up with a fake alibi, and then refuse to testify? Crini explains why: guilt.

But don't stop there. Even Marasca-Bruno comments on the fact the pair lied 'umpteen times'.

Raff had his claim for compensation thrown out because of his deliberate deception, evasion and fraudulent utterings.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should we read a "good" book on the subject or van der Leek?

Name one credible book (so that excludes Nickie) has ever stated any of the following:

"Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches."

Go ahead. Name one.

EXTRADITION, for one.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You can find a very good cataloguing of demonstrable proof of all the lies on this site here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Or, go direct to court documents: Crini spells out in detail how Knox and Sollecito's alibis are actively fake.

Why would someone charged with a serious murder come up with a fake alibi, and then refuse to testify? Crini explains why: guilt.

But don't stop there. Even Marasca-Bruno comments on the fact the pair lied 'umpteen times'.

Raff had his claim for compensation thrown out because of his deliberate deception, evasion and fraudulent utterings.

No, it doesn't work like this, Vixen.

"Proof" does not consist of simply writing "you can find proof here, here and here". I want to see the actual documentary proof of your claims written by you on this thread. You're welcome (indeed encouraged, if not mandated) to point to primary-source evidence to support your "proof".

Have another, better, attempt.

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

EXTRADITION, for one.

Did you fail to see the stipulation "not written by (overinvested charlatan with a pre-conceived agenda) vdLeek"......?

[LondonJohn]

Originally Posted by Vixen

This is fair comment within the context of the argument (being Stacyhs' assertion that 'statement analysis' is pseudo science). If you believe statement analysis cannot identify manipulation, persuasion and lies designed to deceive, then it is fair comment that you are an advertisers' dream and a sucker for hoax innocence campaigns, based on PR/advertising techniques. I see nothing personal there.

It isn't fair comment to claim, as Planigale did, from nowhere and apropos of nothing that as a professional accountant, I don't know the difference between zero and exempt VAT. What? That is a professional slur.

Wow. Well this is another piece of selective "reasoning" for the ages

[Bill Williams]

Originally Posted by Vixen

EXTRADITION, for one.

Who did van der Leek plagiarize that snippet from?

[Stacyhs]

Here is an excellent article on why statement analysis is a pseudoscience. Included in this article is the following quote which included my favorite line which I've put in bold print:

Quote:

In any case, those like Avinoam Sapir, who developed what he calls Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), think they've discovered something that goes beyond mere logical and common sense analysis of people's statements.

Sapir claims to know that John Ramsey was "an abuser and knows who killed his daughter [Jon Benet]." He analyzed the CNN interview of the Ramseys done about a week after the murder of their daughter.* He knows this by Mr. Ramsey's choice of words. Sapir also claims that Magic Johnson got infected with HIV in a bisexual encounter. He knows this because Johnson never said he wasn't a bisexual, only that he wasn't a homosexual, and he said he was certain he got HIV from a woman. According to Sapir, using the word 'certain' indicates "a lack of certainty."* I wonder how certain Sapir is of that claim.

http://skepdic.com/statementanalysis.html


There is a reason statement analysis is not allowed as evidence in court in the US, UK, Canada and elsewhere: it is not a proven science. It is pseudoscience.

[Welshman]

Originally Posted by Vixen

You can find a very good cataloguing of demonstrable proof of all the lies on this site here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Or, go direct to court documents: Crini spells out in detail how Knox and Sollecito's alibis are actively fake.

Why would someone charged with a serious murder come up with a fake alibi, and then refuse to testify? Crini explains why: guilt.

But don't stop there. Even Marasca-Bruno comments on the fact the pair lied 'umpteen times'.

Raff had his claim for compensation thrown out because of his deliberate deception, evasion and fraudulent utterings.

Vixen again attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying and in the same posts yet again repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele said umpteen lies. PGP are so staggeringly stupid they can't recognise their blatant hypocrisy.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Vixen

EXTRADITION, for one.

Ummm...no. I said credible. That you resort to hawking your buddy's incredibly awful ebook is evidence that you cannot provide a single credible book that supports your claim. Try again.

[Stacyhs]

Still working on that citation regarding Italian law requiring lawyers to report abuse of their clients, Vixen?

Hmmm...somehow...somehow...I suspect this will go the way of all those other citations you failed to produce.