Enough, already. The sheer number of strawmen set up and demolished in this thread over the past couple of hours is nothing short of depressing, especially among a group of people who aspire to persuade the police, our legislators and anyone else who will listen of the rightness of their cause.
If any of you are in the mood to take advice - and on tonight's performance, I suspect many of you aren't, but here goes anyway - learn to read what's been said, and respond to the contents of it. Getting furious at someone simply because they are critical of your approach, or the approach of someone you respect, will ultimately get you nowhere and might actually cause you to lose the support of someone you need to have onside ... such as the esteemed Det. Sgt. Murray who, like it or not, is in charge of the Phorm complaint submitted by Alexander Hanff. "Don't bite the hand that feeds you" is a well-known saying for good reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank
I am not a "Phorm hater" (capitalisation on proper nouns is important, don't you think?)
|
Yes, very clever. I think you're also clever enough to understand my meaning in the deliberate use of leet-speak in my original post, which leaves me mystified as to why you're pretending not to get it now.
There is a coterie of hat3rz on this thread in the truest possible internet use of the term. Some of the responses I've had to my posts, in public and in private, are proof of that. There is little (or no) attempt to analyze and respond to the points I've made, whether critically or supportively (either would be nice, truly). There has simply been a tirade of objections that I dare open my mouth at all. Blindly thrashing out at someone for disagreeing with you, without engaging in any intellectual process at all, is what hat3rz do. But I think you already knew that.
Quote:
|
and although I am sure Alexander gets emotionally engaged because he feels passionately that there is a cause to pursue, I don't think that his blog is in any way grotty.
|
His investigative 'technique' is exposed in his conversation with DS Murray.
You call it emotionally engaged,
I call it bullying and grandstanding. Furthermore he has posted it up in a fashion that makes it almost impossible for the DS to exercise any kind of right of reply, because Alexander is pursuing his interests as a private citizen while the police officer is restrained by his positiion as a public servant. He doesn't have the liberty to come on here, or any other forum, and take a pop at Alexander in reply.
Posting those conversations was extremely poor judgement on Alexander's part. I think his blog deserves the term 'grotty' because of this and I stand by it.
Quote:
|
I have not listened to the audio, I don't think I need to, my own experience is that the police service are not equipped to deal with this issue, there are big issues for them to deal with, but they can't just ignore this. And we don't know what decisions are being taken behind the scenes at a higher level...
|
... and here you expose the monumental fallacy at the heart of your entire argument (such as it is). You haven't even listened to the very audio that gave rise to my central complaint when I posted earlier. So you reply to me, directly and indirectly, both publicly and in private, yet for all your impressive-sounding and lofty arguments you have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of the source material we're meant to be discussing.
That, and I mean this sincerely, is pathetic.
Quote:
|
After my last ditch attempt to progress here, it will be off to the EU and Commissioner Redding.
|
Another disappointing aspect of Alexander's conversation with DS Murray, which I had intended to raise with him should he wish to respond to me later, was his willingness to name-drop a member of the House of Lords and the fact that he had a
three hour meeting with him. Name-dropping institutions and influential individuals can be construed as grand-standing, or playing to the gallery. In Alexander's case it seemed to be an attempt to get the DS to start being more compliant. But then, as you haven't listened to it, you have no idea what I'm talking about, have you?
Quote:
Existing members here - stay with it. New members, don't drop out because of one bad night. There's always a big negative debate when news which is anti-Phorm is published (don't know why, but it is true, every time)
Hank
|
While I disagree, strongly, with what Phorm is trying to do, I do not belive some of the batty, amateurish tactics being discussed and, apparently, employed by certain people who have posted in this thread are the best means of fighting against them.
You think this was a bad night? I intend to point out such nonsense wherever I find it and challenge those who want to take the fight to Phorm to do so in a way that is likely to get them listened to, and not merely dismissed as a lunatic fringe. Frankly, on current evidence, I will be very surprised if DS Murray has not already cateorized Alexander in this way.
I sit and await the inevitable flood of objections from those who can't tell the difference between trolling and honest, adult debate.
Anyone with anything constructive to say, however, please, I'll be delighted to hear it, whether you agree with me or not.