http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/another-amazing-coincidence.html
Doubtless there is not enough "proof" for some, but it cannot be
denied that it is yet another amazing coincidence in a long string of
similar coincidences . . .
Rich80105 wrote:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/another-amazing-coincidence.html >>
Doubtless there is not enough "proof" for some, but it cannot be
denied that it is yet another amazing coincidence in a long string of
similar coincidences . . .
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh! Must be true, then .....
On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:39:11 +1200, Anymouse <someone@somewhere.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/another-amazing-coincidence.html >>>
Doubtless there is not enough "proof" for some, but it cannot be
denied that it is yet another amazing coincidence in a long string of
similar coincidences . . .
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh! Must be true, then .....
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/cash-for-honours.html http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/cash-for-honours.html http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/amazing-achievements.html http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/out-of-blue.html
and to show how consistency isn't really necessary in a National
politician, this one relates back to the last of the cites above: http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/key-tricky-with-donation-dinner-details-2014030817#axzz47jQsrK3D
So we know the donations are true, and we now the "coincidences" of
honours are true, but you are "Right" - we may never have any proof on
any connection at all - or at least not enough to convict if that
standard was being considered. So ethically (or as ethical as
National like to be anyway), that makes it all OK, doesn't it? If you
are not convicted, it must be ethical - "right", Anymouse?
Balance of probabilities though? Not "Must be true", but
"Overwhelmingly likely to be true"?
On Wed, 04 May 2016 23:39:11 +1200, Anymouse <someone@somewhere.com>
wrote:
Rich80105 wrote:
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2016/05/another-amazing-coincidence.html >>>
Doubtless there is not enough "proof" for some, but it cannot be
denied that it is yet another amazing coincidence in a long string of
similar coincidences . . .
Post hoc ergo propter hoc, eh! Must be true, then .....
http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/cash-for-honours.html http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/cash-for-honours.html http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/amazing-achievements.html http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/out-of-blue.html
and to show how consistency isn't really necessary in a National
politician, this one relates back to the last of the cites above: http://www.newshub.co.nz/politics/key-tricky-with-donation-dinner-details-2014030817#axzz47jQsrK3D
So we know the donations are true, and we now the "coincidences" of
honours are true, but you are "Right" - we may never have any proof on
any connection at all - or at least not enough to convict if that
standard was being considered. So ethically (or as ethical as
National like to be anyway), that makes it all OK, doesn't it? If you
are not convicted, it must be ethical - "right", Anymouse?
Balance of probabilities though? Not "Must be true", but
"Overwhelmingly likely to be true"?
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 31 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 188:55:58 |
| Calls: | 2,082 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 11,137 |
| Messages: | 947,677 |