rigorousintuition.ca

"This game is simple, and is played with marbles. One player holds in his hand a number of these toys, and demands of another whether that number is even or odd. If the guess is right, the guesser wins one; if wrong, he loses one. The boy to whom I allude won all the marbles of the school. Of course he had some principle of guessing; and this lay in mere observation and admeasurement of the astuteness of his opponents. For example, an arrant simpleton is his opponent, and, holding up his closed hand, asks, 'are they even or odd?' Our schoolboy replies, 'odd,' and loses; but upon the second trial he wins, for he then says to himself, the simpleton had them even upon the first trial, and his amount of cunning is just sufficient to make him have them odd upon the second; I will therefore guess odd'; --he guesses odd, and wins. Now, with a simpleton a degree above the first, he would have reasoned thus: 'This fellow finds that in the first instance I guessed odd, and, in the second, he will propose to himself upon the first impulse, a simple variation from even to odd, as did the first simpleton; but then a second thought will suggest that this is too simple a variation, and finally he will decide upon putting it even as before. I will therefore guess even' guesses even, and wins. Now this mode of reasoning in the schoolboy, whom his fellows termed "lucky," --what, in its last analysis, is it?"

"It is merely," I said, "an identification of the reasoner's intellect with that of his opponent."

Inconsistencies and anomalies abound when one turns an analytical eye to news of the Newtown school massacre. The public’s general acceptance of the event’s validity and faith in its resolution suggests a deepened credulousness borne from a world where almost all news and information is electronically mediated and controlled. The condition is reinforced through the corporate media’s unwillingness to push hard questions vis-à-vis Connecticut and federal authorities who together bottlenecked information while invoking prior restraint through threats of prosecutorial action against journalists and the broader citizenry seeking to interpret the event on social media.

barracuda wrote:In a way, this is yet another signpost that The Strange Case of The Hand-Me-Down Dress is a massively stupid red herring. If it wasn't, Anderson Cooper wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the thing.

"This game is simple, and is played with marbles. One player holds in his hand a number of these toys, and demands of another whether that number is even or odd. If the guess is right, the guesser wins one; if wrong, he loses one. The boy to whom I allude won all the marbles of the school. Of course he had some principle of guessing; and this lay in mere observation and admeasurement of the astuteness of his opponents. For example, an arrant simpleton is his opponent, and, holding up his closed hand, asks, 'are they even or odd?' Our schoolboy replies, 'odd,' and loses; but upon the second trial he wins, for he then says to himself, the simpleton had them even upon the first trial, and his amount of cunning is just sufficient to make him have them odd upon the second; I will therefore guess odd'; --he guesses odd, and wins. Now, with a simpleton a degree above the first, he would have reasoned thus: 'This fellow finds that in the first instance I guessed odd, and, in the second, he will propose to himself upon the first impulse, a simple variation from even to odd, as did the first simpleton; but then a second thought will suggest that this is too simple a variation, and finally he will decide upon putting it even as before. I will therefore guess even' guesses even, and wins. Now this mode of reasoning in the schoolboy, whom his fellows termed "lucky," --what, in its last analysis, is it?"

"It is merely," I said, "an identification of the reasoner's intellect with that of his opponent."

barracuda wrote:In a way, this is yet another signpost that The Strange Case of The Hand-Me-Down Dress is a massively stupid red herring. If it wasn't, Anderson Cooper wouldn't be allowed anywhere near the thing.

But I've always thought of his Katrina reportage as an indication that he actually probably couldn't participate in a cruel and ugly charade if he saw that's what it was.

I mean, a lot of people were doing that. And everybody might never have done anything else if he hadn't.

I know that's not everything. Far from it, But it's not nothing either.

8bitagent wrote:Just like the crazy Loose Change/no plane shit, it's the WTF crap that makes it on cable news regarding questioning events(notice they NEVER had Nafeez Ahmed, Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, etc on cable news networks...they never made a 2 hour cable documentary debunking Press for Truth)

Ben Swann's Reality Check has been covering Aurora and Sandy Hook, but it's regarding eye witness reports of mysterious phone calls and other anomalies, as well as ties to major financial fraud reports.
This "Sandy Hook was a hoax, noone died" BULLSHIT, which could not get any more offensive and sickening, has spread like wild fire. I dont mind the "are these shootings black ops" questioning, but this stuff is on a whole other level of stupid...like Loose Change stupid.

He might not be the sharpest tack. But I've always thought of his Katrina reportage as an indication that he actually probably couldn't participate in a cruel and ugly charade if he saw that's what it was..

beeblebrox wrote:

8bitagent wrote:Just like the crazy Loose Change/no plane shit, it's the WTF crap that makes it on cable news regarding questioning events(notice they NEVER had Nafeez Ahmed, Kevin Fenton, Paul Thompson, etc on cable news networks...they never made a 2 hour cable documentary debunking Press for Truth)

Ben Swann's Reality Check has been covering Aurora and Sandy Hook, but it's regarding eye witness reports of mysterious phone calls and other anomalies, as well as ties to major financial fraud reports.
This "Sandy Hook was a hoax, noone died" BULLSHIT, which could not get any more offensive and sickening, has spread like wild fire. I dont mind the "are these shootings black ops" questioning, but this stuff is on a whole other level of stupid...like Loose Change stupid.

If this is in any way directed at me, my comments were meant as a criticism of Cooper, not a defense of Tracy.

Maybe James Tracy's theory is ridiculous, at the very least it was foolish to state it publicly, but I understand why wild speculation like this happens. A lot of people don't trust a word the government, or the media, says. So I don't find it all that shocking or scandalous when people try to fit the pieces of the puzzle together on their own.