Thought for the Day

There are numerous rebuttals of the Sandy Hook hoax on the web, indeed, I wonder why people continue to insist it was a hoax when all of their claims are simply, and verifiably rubbish. In a collection of films We Need to Talk About Sandy Hook, prepared by the Tyranny News Network (a go-to site fore conspiracy theories), allegations are made about the mother of one of the chidren that can be easily verified as false. In another a well-publicized photo of children being led away from the school, it is claimed to be fake because video taken shortly after 10.00 am does not show them, yet a comparison of the two shows they happened at different times of the day- overcast in the video, sunny in the photo. And so on. It is deeply depressing and to me a form of Holocaust Denial which begs the question, what is being denied and for what reason?

It is one thing to argue the Federal Government doesn't always tell the truth, all governments massage the facts or try to cover up embarrassing events or policy details. But to leap from that to accuse government of crimes such as Sandy Hook is perverse, its demonization of the victims simply wicked. There are many problems in the US but it isn't Syria or North Korea.

More serious has been the decision of a Court in Poland that two historians apologize for -according to the judgment of the Court- defaming a Polish relative of a Mayor accused of helping the Nazis round up Jews in the town that were sent to their death in Treblinka. It is a controversial case because there is evidence the man concerned helped some Jews escape, while condemning others. Here we are dealng with a real Holocaust where 80 years after the event the tangled testimony begs questions, but surely ought to be left open for more debate and research, rather than be shut down as part of a campaign by a Nationalist Party in Government to 'resurrect' the reputation of Poland from accusations it was complicit in the Holocaust -which it was, indeed, violence against Jews was common even before 1933; but where there is also evidence of anti-Nazi activity, of heroic deeds and sacrifices on behalf of Jews, thus making an either/or account of history a travesty of what happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ered-apologise


If you haven't seen it, there is a rebuttal of the Sandy Hook hoax here
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sandy-hook-exposed/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

There are numerous rebuttals of the Sandy Hook hoax on the web, indeed, I wonder why people continue to insist it was a hoax when all of their claims are simply, and verifiably rubbish.

---

Conspiracy theories are just an extreme example of the common phenomenon of motivated reasoning - people believing what it suits them to believe. Conspiracies appeal to some people because they offer a ready-made story into which everything can be fitted, in which anything they don't like can be attributed to plots by evil people. It also allows any inconsistent evidence to be dismissed as being as part of the conspiracy, while anything that can be portrayed as supporting the conspiracy is accepted, so matter how dubious, ambiguous or inconsistent.
https://www.livescience.com/26314-sa...-theories.html

We can see this easily in previous comments by our resident persona non grata, with their continual references to the liberal-media complex allegedly manipulating the American public. His enthusiastic support for the Sandy Hook conspiracy claim is hardly an outlier, given that his entire political worldview centres on one big conspiracy.

Conspiracy theories are like a warm blanket to some believers...if they cast it away it will leave them cold and uncomfortable..lol. Their altered reality allows them to belong to groups with their own ‘special’ beliefs. The more absurd the belief...the more ‘special’ they feel they are - clearly superior to an un believer, because only they can see reality for what it is. In many ways like religious fundamentalists. There are times though, that I think some folks post conspiracy theories for the troll thrills it gives them.

Proposals are emerging for a tunnel to link Scotland with Northern Ireland. It is being seen as an alternative to a bridge, which is something Boris Johnson thought of. Some have already called it 'Boris's Burrow' which is surely too obscure for the internet generation, unless the word Burrow appears in a video game. The Channel Tunnel linking the UK to France was nicknamed the 'Chunnel', but I am not sure what this new one, if it happens, could be called.

My initial thought was to called it the ScotNir, but that slipped into SnotNir. Then there was Irnal, but this rapidly deteriorated from Urinal into Anal, and as I don't think that matches the brief, perhaps a more erudite member of HA can toss out an alternative?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The Channel Tunnel linking the UK to France was nicknamed the 'Chunnel', but I am not sure what this new one, if it happens, could be called.

---

The historical reference might be too obscure for most people, but how about the Dal Riata Dig? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata
Alternatively, the Celtic Connection, or CeltCon.
Or maybe the Sculster Subway?

You can just call it “The Pipe” in deference to the pipes...the playing of which is a shared tradition between the two countries. That, and because a tunnel is a pipe. I hope this makes sense in the morning because I wrote it slightly drunk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

The historical reference might be too obscure for most people, but how about the Dal Riata Dig? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1l_Riata
Alternatively, the Celtic Connection, or CeltCon.
Or maybe the Sculster Subway?

---

Erudition indeed! Had never heard of Dal Riata before. Sculster Subway sounds too rude, but see my response to Fred below.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

You can just call it “The Pipe” in deference to the pipes...the playing of which is a shared tradition between the two countries. That, and because a tunnel is a pipe. I hope this makes sense in the morning because I wrote it slightly drunk.

---

It makes sense, Fred, not just if you are drunk, but French, though not in the way you may intend 'la Pipe' to mean...

https://context.reverso.net/translat...faire+une+pipe

I sort of understand the conflict between Facebook and the Australian Government, but then maybe I don't. How did the Government, as appears to be the case, become dependent on Facebook as a source of news and advice on policies over which it has total control and indeed, which presents its policies on its own websites. Has the public chosen Facebook over the Government? And what if Facebook did not exist? It cannot mean Australians being ignorant of their own Government's policies and advice- or can it?

Facebook -nice to have, not need to have. I don't use it and I am reasonably well informed. What's the big deal? Looks to me like the Australian Govt is whining like a spoiled brat. Get a grip, Bruce.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Proposals are emerging for a tunnel to link Scotland with Northern Ireland. It is being seen as an alternative to a bridge, which is something Boris Johnson thought of. Some have already called it 'Boris's Burrow' which is surely too obscure for the internet generation, unless the word Burrow appears in a video game. The Channel Tunnel linking the UK to France was nicknamed the 'Chunnel', but I am not sure what this new one, if it happens, could be called.

My initial thought was to called it the ScotNir, but that slipped into SnotNir. Then there was Irnal, but this rapidly deteriorated from Urinal into Anal, and as I don't think that matches the brief, perhaps a more erudite member of HA can toss out an alternative?

---

The Funnel, obviously. That's how you connect one alcoholic society to another.