Phoenyx Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 6 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: Everyone, eh? I meant everyone on -our- side. Clearly, your side believes the opposite. It proves my point- there are 2 narratives here. There is ofcourse a way to get to the truth. Both sides can participate. Your side can question Boyce more, our side can question Ronnie more. But neither seems that interested at this point in time, so we continue to have 2 narratives instead of working to see if we can unite those narratives into the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Scarfalot Posted November 30, 2020 Share Posted November 30, 2020 7 minutes ago, Phoenyx said: I meant everyone on -our- side. Clearly, your side believes the opposite. It proves my point- there are 2 narratives here. There is ofcourse a way to get to the truth. Both sides can participate. Your side can question Boyce more, our side can question Ronnie more. But neither seems that interested at this point in time, so we continue to have 2 narratives instead of working to see if we can unite those narratives into the truth. And what would that accomplish at all? There might well be a "truth", but it isn't relevant since decisions have been made. More to the point, questioning people only goes so far and certainly does not result in finding "truth" unless they're ill-prepared enough to actually fail in their smokescreens. The best evidence is concrete, and we've got enough of that for our purposes. If that's not enough for yours, then too bad: why should we care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenyx Posted November 30, 2020 Author Share Posted November 30, 2020 47 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: And what would that accomplish at all? There might well be a "truth", but it isn't relevant since decisions have been made. The decision to go to war yes, but wars can be stopped as well as started. 48 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: More to the point, questioning people only goes so far and certainly does not result in finding "truth" unless they're ill-prepared enough to actually fail in their smokescreens. The best way to avoid the truth being revealed is not to talk at all. This is something that both sides are doing quite admirably. As mentioned before, i strongly suspect the -reason- both sides refuse to come forward is because it wouldn't look good for both. Once again, however, I feel the need to point out that what I think would become clear if enough scrutiny was put on the issue is that there was no plan to attack Quack first. 50 minutes ago, Sir Scarfalot said: The best evidence is concrete, and we've got enough of that for our purposes. Do you know :-p? By all means, present it then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.