Food parcels from the eu

[cromwell]

Honest admission? Since this debate between us began my state of mind has changed due to the consumption of several JDs and cokes.

To be honest this rather more innebriated state leaves me lacking the focus to want to read links in detail.

Piston broke 

[srb7677]

Bloody hell Steve you should be on strictly.......doing the side step.

Honest admission? Since this debate between us began my state of mind has changed due to the consumption of several JDs and cokes.

To be honest this rather more innebriated state leaves me lacking the focus to want to read links in detail.

[cromwell]

I have long since learned to dismiss the Mail out of hand, yes.

If I am interested enough in the subject matter I will take much more heed of the same information in less unreliable sources. The Reuters source does not really back up the Mail, and is instead more about what some French guy thinks about Brexit and the rights of fishermen.

None of which increases the reliability of whatever the Mail says, even though it might not always lie. It lies often enough not to be trusted, even if it adopts the appearances of reasonableness. Show me the same story somewhere else, and I might be more inclined to trust it.

Anyway, whether the Finns see fit to send us food parcels - which has Daily Mail fantasy written all over it - or some other bod associated with France wants to blame Brexit for our woes is not something that interests me enough to explore it at depth. People so minded will blame Brexit when it suits them. Others will blame the EU. Plus ca change. I don't really care enough to want to discuss it further. These kinds of issues tend to be ones where people believe whatever they want to believe, from whatever sources tell them what they want to believe. I tend not to trust either side all that much.

Bloody hell Steve you should be on strictly.......doing the side step.

[srb7677]

Like I said you dismiss it out of hand.

I have long since learned to dismiss the Mail out of hand, yes.

If I am interested enough in the subject matter I will take much more heed of the same information in less unreliable sources. The Reuters source does not really back up the Mail, and is instead more about what some French guy thinks about Brexit and the rights of fishermen.

None of which increases the reliability of whatever the Mail says, even though it might not always lie. It lies often enough not to be trusted, even if it adopts the appearances of reasonableness. Show me the same story somewhere else, and I might be more inclined to trust it.

Anyway, whether the Finns see fit to send us food parcels - which has Daily Mail fantasy written all over it - or some other bod associated with France wants to blame Brexit for our woes is not something that interests me enough to explore it at depth. People so minded will blame Brexit when it suits them. Others will blame the EU. Plus ca change. I don't really care enough to want to discuss it further. These kinds of issues tend to be ones where people believe whatever they want to believe, from whatever sources tell them what they want to believe. I tend not to trust either side all that much.

[cromwell]

If the informatrion within it is reliable and factual it will no doubt be more widely reported in  other outlets, so it shouldn't take you long to supply the same info from a source I will lend more credence to. If it is only being reported in the Mail and nowhere else, then past form would suggest to me that it might well be highly unreliable.

You ask me to read a frequently dishonest source with no means of veryfying the truth  of what it is saying? To believe I am being told the truth by it would necessitate verification of the same facts from other sources. Without that, how can I believe whatever it is I am being asked to read? That you choose to believe it is obvious. That it is just the sort of story you like to believe in is equally obvious. Neither fact serves to verify that it is being straight with facts. rather than feeding you a line it will know you will like and will therefore choose to believe?

No Steve more dismissals from you so let's dissect what was said by the mail.

But what is undeniable is that the EU has shown flexibility in trying to accommodate British concerns. Whilst no one can know how this will end, it seems the Commission — unlike Messrs Macron and Beaune — is displaying a degree of common sense.

So that's the mail eu bashing is it?

So let's move on to Clement Beaune presumably you think Reuters an ok source https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/french-minister-beaune-french-fishermen-must-not-pay-uks-brexit-failure-2021-10-08/
Now look what the mail said

Almost every action by the British Government is seen by Mr Beaune as a diversionary tactic to take our minds off the disaster of Brexit.

If we refuse to grant the requisite number of fishing licences to France, it is allegedly because we have been driven half mad by our mounting difficulties.

Mr Beaune is stern. 'It is not by creating problems for our fishermen,' he says, 'that you will solve the problems of shortages of Christmas turkey.'

So looking at both that's the mail being unreliable?

Like I said you dismiss it out of hand.

[srb7677]

Well closing off a source because you perceive it biased without even looking is pointless.

Of course the mail and so many other sources put their own slant on things,that doesn't make it all lies.

Unless you are prepared to at least look at what's said then looking to see any truth or falsehoods or somewhere between without dismissing it out of hand closes your mind.

If the informatrion within it is reliable and factual it will no doubt be more widely reported in  other outlets, so it shouldn't take you long to supply the same info from a source I will lend more credence to. If it is only being reported in the Mail and nowhere else, then past form would suggest to me that it might well be highly unreliable.

You ask me to read a frequently dishonest source with no means of veryfying the truth  of what it is saying? To believe I am being told the truth by it would necessitate verification of the same facts from other sources. Without that, how can I believe whatever it is I am being asked to read? That you choose to believe it is obvious. That it is just the sort of story you like to believe in is equally obvious. Neither fact serves to verify that it is being straight with facts. rather than feeding you a line it will know you will like and will therefore choose to believe?

[cromwell]

No I don't suppose it always lies but it is notorious for bending the truth.

When people supply the Mail as a source they are halfway to losing the power to persuade me of anything right there.

I have not read the link because I regard it as an unreliable source, but would be more likely to if the same information were supplied by more reliable outlets.

When I post links, I prefer most often to seek out the info in sources those who might not like it are more likely to trust. I wouldn't post a link to the Canary or Novarra Media for example because it would be laughed off the field by right wingers. The Daily Mail has the same effect upon me, and too often I find that those who do trust it do so because they have chosen to buy into it's ideological view to some extent. None of which advances the cause of persuading me very much.

Well closing off a source because you perceive it biased without even looking is pointless.

Of course the mail and so many other sources put their own slant on things,that doesn't make it all lies.

Unless you are prepared to at least look at what's said then looking to see any truth or falsehoods or somewhere between without dismissing it out of hand closes your mind.

[srb7677]

Bit of intellectual snobbery there Steve,are you saying the mail always lies and you can refute all that article as lies?

No I don't suppose it always lies but it is notorious for bending the truth.

When people supply the Mail as a source they are halfway to losing the power to persuade me of anything right there.

I have not read the link because I regard it as an unreliable source, but would be more likely to if the same information were supplied by more reliable outlets.

When I post links, I prefer most often to seek out the info in sources those who might not like it are more likely to trust. I wouldn't post a link to the Canary or Novarra Media for example because it would be laughed off the field by right wingers. The Daily Mail has the same effect upon me, and too often I find that those who do trust it do so because they have chosen to buy into it's ideological view to some extent. None of which advances the cause of persuading me very much.

[cromwell]

Anyone who regards the Daily Mail as a reliable source is far too trusting. It goes back to the points I made on another thread. That we are all preprogrammed to believe what we like the sound of and disbelieve what we don't like the sound of. Some people are sometimes excessively gullible when it comes to unreliable sources just because they like what they read.

Bit of intellectual snobbery there Steve,are you saying the mail always lies and you can refute all that article as lies?

[srb7677]

You are probably right Steve. I have always been comfortable with my own stupidity. That said, when can we expect the salmon soup?

Whatever other qualities I might adorn you with, stupidity is not one of them. Your humour alone can often be very clever. But you are often more focussed upon getting a laugh than making a point.

But that's fine. We all like a laugh occasionally.

[Borchester]

Anyone who regards the Daily Mail as a reliable source is far too trusting. It goes back to the points I made on another thread. That we are all preprogrammed to believe what we like the sound of and disbelieve what we don't like the sound of. Some people are sometimes excessively gullible when it comes to unreliable sources just because they like what they read.

You are probably right Steve. I have always been comfortable with my own stupidity. That said, when can we expect the salmon soup?

[papasmurf]

Some people are sometimes excessively gullible when it comes to unreliable sources just because they like what they read.

That is very obvious on internet forums. The problem being such people are not carrying out any mitigating action for future problem. (They are the ones who will probably need a food parcel.)

[srb7677]

Apparently we are a basket case because of brexit,oh dear hell hath no fury like an eu scorned.

Anyway the aFinns in an act of magnanimity want to send us food parcels.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089745/STEPHEN-GLOVER-potty-Europe-blame-supply-woes-Brexit.html

Anyone who regards the Daily Mail as a reliable source is far too trusting. It goes back to the points I made on another thread. That we are all preprogrammed to believe what we like the sound of and disbelieve what we don't like the sound of. Some people are sometimes excessively gullible when it comes to unreliable sources just because they like what they read.

[Borchester]

Apparently we are a basket case because of brexit,oh dear hell hath no fury like an eu scorned.

Anyway the aFinns in an act of magnanimity want to send us food parcels.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089745/STEPHEN-GLOVER-potty-Europe-blame-supply-woes-Brexit.html

Let us not let the Daily Mail spoil a good thing. Put me down for a few tureens of salmon soup with cream.

[cromwell]

Apparently we are a basket case because of brexit,oh dear hell hath no fury like an eu scorned.

Anyway the aFinns in an act of magnanimity want to send us food parcels.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10089745/STEPHEN-GLOVER-potty-Europe-blame-supply-woes-Brexit.html