MATCH: vs Colchester United (A) 26/02/22

[Worcester Owl]

27 minutes ago, Dave_Og said:

But quoted them as 'facts'. Not really conducive to a debate. 

Exactly. But don't expect Ryan or League one forever to recognise the distinction.

[League one forever]

20 minutes ago, Worcester Owl said:

Exactly. But don't expect Ryan or League one forever to recognise the distinction.

 

Right on cue. 

[rudemedic]

To get this somewhat back on topic.
 

For those of us that went - good news about the old lady who tripped down the stairs at the end of the game.

 

 

[Matt]

17 hours ago, Ryan said:

They are the best tool we have for assessing public opinion, no? 

 

Kind of a strange question that, it might be the best tool we have - yet that doesn't make it a good tool, and it doesn't make the results anything more than a talking point - I certainly wouldn't use it to support a claim. And for privately commissioned polls, most polling companies will produce the results the client needs.

 

I'm of the mindset that debate needs to be supported with conclusive evidence. The sheer amount of false claims, straw men (only yesterday a Russian media outlet I think it was Sputnik faked a situation, claimed it was propaganda from a Ukrainian source, then continued to explain how easy it was to concoct), and disinformation surrounding this crisis is staggering - it's virtually impossible to see the truth - I don't even try.

 

I get peoples opinions of the situation, I get how views are formed, however I always check sources and make sure it's corroborated from multiple sources, and try to not scaffold that with less-than-credible source material - especially with the internet being exactly the tool needed to push rubbish out there, and it doesn't take a lot either, 4chan can almost make anything believable - it doesn't even need to come from the state.