Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Stacyhs]

Of course I know the difference. I have NVQ4 in both business tax and personal tax. Plus a VAT specific one. Not to mention financial strategy as part of my fully chartered qualification. I have submitted tax returns and filed accounts hundreds of times, including TOMS and EC sales lists

You don't know the difference between Revenues and net profit.

Fact is coca-cola remains near top http://www.coca-colacompany.com/coca-cola-unbottled/coca-cola-no-3-on-most-valuable-brands-ranking

My source is Mark Thomas, who did a whole comedy tour of the UK about Coca-Cola and its practices. I have his book which gives the low down, which is how I know Coca-Cola's profits are greater than Mexico's debt to IMF.

https://youtu.be/LH0r84W3LgU

For the avoidance of doubt, how does this tie in with Amanda Knox? Her father knew the value of PR and advertising - coca-cola is branded by its tin! - and paid an advertising agency to promote her phony case even before he hired a lawyer.

So Staceyhs claim that there is no such thing as manipulation of statements and that 'statement analysis' is a 'pseudo science' is pure bunkum.

There you go again, claiming I said something I never said. I have never said there "is no such thing as manipulation of statements". I said that statement analysis is a pseudoscience. I said that Statement analysis is not advertising. For the second time:

Statement analysis, also called investigative discourse analysis and scientific content analysis (SCAN), is a technique for analyzing the words people use to try to determine if what they said is accurate.

Advertising is the art of getting people to buy an idea or a good. It is all about persuasion. It is NOT about determining if what people say is accurate. Please stop making thing up.

 

[Vixen]

There you go again, claiming I said something I never said. I have never said there "is no such thing as manipulation of statements". I said that statement analysis is a pseudoscience. I said that Statement analysis is not advertising. For the second time:



Advertising is the art of getting people to buy an idea or a good. It is all about persuasion. It is NOT about determining if what people say is accurate. Please stop making thing up.

It follows that statement analysis can weed out the lies little 'persuasions'.

Seriously, what is the difference between advertising/PR and sending out 'memes' to persuade the public a person accused of murder has been 'railroaded' / 'interrogated for 53 hours' , etc.

Given we can pick up on these totally false 'press releases' by 'PR agents' (and we have seen how fantastically successful advertising is when we look at Coca-cola or even Nike - which in effect, is merely a logo) then it is clear statement analysis is not a 'pseudo science'.

How easily are you persuaded by advertising? I would guess a lot given how readily you slurp up the Knox PR. I am willing to bet you scoured the 'Black Friday' deals, am I correct?

My advice to you is, for one day - just one day - try to resist the advertisers messages. Ignore the columnist who wants to persuade you Knox was beaten up by the police, that's why she blurted out Patrick's name. Ignore all the advertisers. Let's see how long you can last out without capitulating and buying Coca-Cola instead of the store's own brand.

Then come back and tell us that there is no such science as 'statement analysis'. If you can do it, it exists.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know how you feel qualified to even discuss this case when you don't even know basic Italian law.

After all these years, you have no idea that Italian attorneys are obliged to report abuse of their clients by police.

Your knowledge of Italian law comes straight from this case, the same as mine. Do not imply that you are some sort of expert on Italian law. You aren't.

You have still failed to come up with a citation stating that by law "Italian attorneys are obliged to report abuse of their clients by police".

There well may be such a law as I don't know if there is or not. I asked for a citation. However, wouldn't such a law violate attorney client confidentiality/privilege? What if the client and the lawyer feel making this known would hurt their case? Is the lawyer still obligated to report it?
But that is not the point. The point is that you made this claim as a fact. I asked for a citation...3 times. You have still failed to produce such a law which, from past actions of yours, usually means you cannot produce it.

This is easily settled. Produce said law or admit you cannot.

 

[snoop_doxie]

What is your evidence that statement analysis exists and/or is an effective tool to use investigating a murder?

Please leave out the comparison to advertising, it destroys your argument that statement analysis is not pseudo science.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is your evidence that statement analysis exists and/or is an effective tool to use investigating a murder?

Please leave out the comparison to advertising, it destroys your argument that statement analysis is not pseudo science.

Statement Analysis is a police tool akin to a polygraph. It is used, but there are good ressons why their results are inadmissible in court.

In Canada there was a case where the sole reason a man had been charged was when the cop cited his own statement analysis training. The whole thing was promptly thrown out.

Statement Analysis has its place. Online prognosticators are not one of them.

 

[Stacyhs]

It follows that statement analysis can weed out the lies little 'persuasions'.

Not necessarily. When a face cream advertisement says "Crows feet and little lines may appear smaller within minutes", they aren't lying but they are trying to persuade the consumer to assume they will. The word "may" is crucial as are the words "appear" and "smaller", both of whom are subjective.

Seriously, what is the difference between advertising/PR and sending out 'memes' to persuade the public a person accused of murder has been 'railroaded' / 'interrogated for 53 hours' , etc.

What has that got to do with statement analysis which, once again, is intended to determine truth from falsehoods? It is not advertising or PR. The "53 hours of interrogation" is from the Knox appeal document submitted to the court. No court or prosecutor ever contradicted that number. Or do you think the defense lawyers did not have access to the police records?

Given we can pick up on these totally false 'press releases' by 'PR agents' (and we have seen how fantastically successful advertising is when we look at Coca-cola or even Nike - which in effect, is merely a logo) then it is clear statement analysis is not a 'pseudo science'.

Speaking of totally false "press releases", let's discuss the police leaking the picture of the "bathroom covered in blood", the "running washing machine", the "I was there", the "bleach receipt", the "Sollecito's bloody shoeprints",and the "German Harry Potter book" lies, shall we?

The advertising of Coke and Nike are not statement analysis. It is advertising:

To describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance:

It is NOT to determine truth from falsehoods in a statement. Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?

How easily are you persuaded by advertising? I would guess a lot given how readily you slurp up the Knox PR. I am willing to bet you scoured the 'Black Friday' deals, am I correct?

Guess again. Speaking of slurping up PR, take a look at the TJMK trough.

My advice to you is, for one day - just one day - try to resist the advertisers messages. Ignore the columnist who wants to persuade you Knox was beaten up by the police, that's why she blurted out Patrick's name. Ignore all the advertisers. Let's see how long you can last out without capitulating and buying Coca-Cola instead of the store's own brand.

Then come back and tell us that there is no such science as 'statement analysis'. If you can do it, it exists.

Ew. I can't stand Coke or any other soda. Never drink any of it. I much prefer a sparkling water with a hint of fruit flavor.
As for my ability to withstand obvious junk PR, I've withstood the nonsense and lies being put out by TJMK, PMF and TMofMK for the last 9+ years.

Once you understand that statement analysis and advertising are not the same thing as per their very definitions, come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, see if you can find that Italian law that requires lawyers to report any abuse of their clients.

 

[TruthCalls]

It follows that statement analysis can weed out the lies little 'persuasions'.

Seriously, what is the difference between advertising/PR and sending out 'memes' to persuade the public a person accused of murder has been 'railroaded' / 'interrogated for 53 hours' , etc.

Given we can pick up on these totally false 'press releases' by 'PR agents' (and we have seen how fantastically successful advertising is when we look at Coca-cola or even Nike - which in effect, is merely a logo) then it is clear statement analysis is not a 'pseudo science'.

How easily are you persuaded by advertising? I would guess a lot given how readily you slurp up the Knox PR. I am willing to bet you scoured the 'Black Friday' deals, am I correct?

My advice to you is, for one day - just one day - try to resist the advertisers messages. Ignore the columnist who wants to persuade you Knox was beaten up by the police, that's why she blurted out Patrick's name. Ignore all the advertisers. Let's see how long you can last out without capitulating and buying Coca-Cola instead of the store's own brand.

Then come back and tell us that there is no such science as 'statement analysis'. If you can do it, it exists.

Yet you continue to cite from TJMK and the fake wiki, both of which represent guilter PR.

How many times must it be stated that no one has ever claimed Amanda was "beaten up" by the police? It's an interesting way to argue for a 'Knox PR campaign'... you either make something up or you copy it from a guilter PR site and then accuse 'Knox PR' of making the claim. Odd indeed...

 

[Vixen]

Not necessarily. When a face cream advertisement says "Crows feet and little lines may appear smaller within minutes", they aren't lying but they are trying to persuade the consumer to assume they will. The word "may" is crucial as are the words "appear" and "smaller", both of whom are subjective.



What has that got to do with statement analysis which, once again, is intended to determine truth from falsehoods? It is not advertising or PR. The "53 hours of interrogation" is from the Knox appeal document submitted to the court. No court or prosecutor ever contradicted that number. Or do you think the defense lawyers did not have access to the police records?



Speaking of totally false "press releases", let's discuss the police leaking the picture of the "bathroom covered in blood", the "running washing machine", the "I was there", the "bleach receipt", the "Sollecito's bloody shoeprints",and the "German Harry Potter book" lies, shall we?

The advertising of Coke and Nike are not statement analysis. It is advertising:



It is NOT to determine truth from falsehoods in a statement. Why is that concept so difficult for you to understand?



Guess again. Speaking of slurping up PR, take a look at the TJMK trough.





Ew. I can't stand Coke or any other soda. Never drink any of it. I much prefer a sparkling water with a hint of fruit flavor.
As for my ability to withstand obvious junk PR, I've withstood the nonsense and lies being put out by TJMK, PMF and TMofMK for the last 9+ years.

Once you understand that statement analysis and advertising are not the same thing as per their very definitions, come back and we'll talk. In the meantime, see if you can find that Italian law that requires lawyers to report any abuse of their clients.

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

 

[bagels]

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

A better question is who are you convincing of anything because it's certainly not anybody on this forum with your dumb arguments and conspiracy theories.

 

[TruthCalls]

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

To quote Stacy;

Speaking of totally false "press releases", let's discuss the police leaking the picture of the "bathroom covered in blood", the "running washing machine", the "I was there", the "bleach receipt", the "Sollecito's bloody shoeprints",and the "German Harry Potter book" lies, shall we?

Of course, we could also break out the thousands of bogus articles written over the years or merely point you back to TJMK or the fake wiki... you're heart is in the right place but it's currently misplaced. The phony PR is coming from your side - it always has.

Stacy is also correct that Advertising and Statement Analysis are entirely different. Talk about not being able to grasp even the simple concepts. Statement analysis seeks to determine whether what has been spoken or written is true or false; advertising is an effort to get you to believe or desire something. You could say you could use statement analysis to determine if an advertisement is true or not, but you didn't say that. And while that would be the 'intent' of statement analysis, whether it actually works and is recognized as a valid science is another matter entirely.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

Oh right. So go ahead and "demonstrably prove" all of that to us, won't you? Don't forget, in the course of doing so, that you're claiming that "demonstrable proof" exists that:

Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches. (my bolding for emphasis)



*gets popcorn*

 

[Stacyhs]

That is a very stupid statement.

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

The fact is, it can be demonstrably proven that Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches.

Who are you kidding?

No, what is stupid is being given the definition of both terms and not being able to comprehend that they are not the same thing. This is just indicative of your inability to ever, ever admit when you are wrong. You'll even argue with the accepted dictionary definitions!

No, it is not a fact that any of what you claim is true so stop using "the fact is" when it's not. What you just alleged is a vast conspiracy with respected and world renowned scientists, forensic experts, and award winning/best selling journalists all colluding to subvert justice in a foreign country for a girl none of them had ever heard of before Nov. 2007. And what is really scary? That you believe it.

May I suggest you stop arguing this as you have clearly lost and instead spend some time looking for that "law" you claim exists? Or shall we just consign it to the ever growing mountain of your claims you can't prove?

 

[Stacyhs]

Oh right. So go ahead and "demonstrably prove" all of that to us, won't you? Don't forget, in the course of doing so, that you're claiming that "demonstrable proof" exists that:

Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches. (my bolding for emphasis)



*gets popcorn*

Move over. I'll bring my own popcorn. No worries.

 

[LondonJohn]

If there is a false narrative, or shall we say, one that aims to 'persuade', then we can carry out a statement analysis to identify it. Nothing 'pseudo' about it.

Your "knowledge" of all this area is as made-up as your "knowledge" of physics and ballistics.

Other statements made by you within posts on these matters today indicate that you don't even know/understand the difference between a logo and a brand (hint: Nike, to take your example, has built a brand with a whole range of brand values, and the Nike logo is but one (readily-recognisable) way for Nike to project its brand values). You don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, to go back to the incorrect statement in your quote above, you are apparently ignorantly supposing that all attempts to persuade (no inverted commas necessary) are necessarily attempts to deceive or misdirect. To take a simplistic example to illustrate your level of wrong: often the makers of a new washing detergent will use advertising and marketing strategies to try to persuade consumers that this detergent is more effective at cleaning clothes than any other rival detergent....... and this will in fact be an honest and true claim (in fact, in the UK the advertising standards authority has an explicit remit to enforce this sort of behaviour).

And that leads us on to Knox (in particular) and her legal/PR strategy. It's now abundantly clear (IMO, judging by your words...) that you are (to say the least) highly suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context; and it's more than abundantly clear that you can only interpret Knox's legal/PR efforts as a knowing attempt to deceive (and, in your world, to attempt to pervert justice into the bargain). It appears impossible for you to even conceive of the notion that Knox and her lawyers and PR company might be trying to persuade from a position of truth and honesty. Because your position on this is ignorant and biassed. Amirite?

 

[Bill Williams]

Your "knowledge" of all this area is as made-up as your "knowledge" of physics and ballistics.

Other statements made by you within posts on these matters today indicate that you don't even know/understand the difference between a logo and a brand (hint: Nike, to take your example, has built a brand with a whole range of brand values, and the Nike logo is but one (readily-recognisable) way for Nike to project its brand values). You don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, to go back to the incorrect statement in your quote above, you are apparently ignorantly supposing that all attempts to persuade (no inverted commas necessary) are necessarily attempts to deceive or misdirect. To take a simplistic example to illustrate your level of wrong: often the makers of a new washing detergent will use advertising and marketing strategies to try to persuade consumers that this detergent is more effective at cleaning clothes than any other rival detergent....... and this will in fact be an honest and true claim (in fact, in the UK the advertising standards authority has an explicit remit to enforce this sort of behaviour).

And that leads us on to Knox (in particular) and her legal/PR strategy. It's now abundantly clear (IMO, judging by your words...) that you are (to say the least) highly suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context; and it's more than abundantly clear that you can only interpret Knox's legal/PR efforts as a knowing attempt to deceive (and, in your world, to attempt to pervert justice into the bargain). It appears impossible for you to even conceive of the notion that Knox and her lawyers and PR company might be trying to persuade from a position of truth and honesty. Because your position on this is ignorant and biassed. Amirite?

Giuliano Mignini recently tried to "persuade", or more properly persuade (without the quotes) the Italian court system that Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel had criminally defamed him, as well as civilly defamed him.

What we know at this point is that that persuasion, or "persuasion", seems to have failed. The judge adjudicating the criminal part of this allegation threw it out. Mignini himself abandoned his civil suit against the pair.

Out of all the times one might wish to be suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context, why is it that Vixen s not suspicious of a seemingly failed attempt to persuade a court?

There's a promise out there by these folk, now two weeks' overdue, that all of that had been as part of a bargain in which Sollecito and Gumbel would simply, formally apologize for the alleged offending claims. That apology is overdue, and make one additionally suspicious that this group of conspiracists simply make stuff up as they go.

Maybe Vixen would have better luck evaluating her concerns about bad-PR outlets by turning her understanding of Statement Analysis on to places like TJMK and the fake-Wiki.

 

[Vixen]

Your "knowledge" of all this area is as made-up as your "knowledge" of physics and ballistics.

Other statements made by you within posts on these matters today indicate that you don't even know/understand the difference between a logo and a brand (hint: Nike, to take your example, has built a brand with a whole range of brand values, and the Nike logo is but one (readily-recognisable) way for Nike to project its brand values). You don't know what you're talking about.

Likewise, to go back to the incorrect statement in your quote above, you are apparently ignorantly supposing that all attempts to persuade (no inverted commas necessary) are necessarily attempts to deceive or misdirect. To take a simplistic example to illustrate your level of wrong: often the makers of a new washing detergent will use advertising and marketing strategies to try to persuade consumers that this detergent is more effective at cleaning clothes than any other rival detergent....... and this will in fact be an honest and true claim (in fact, in the UK the advertising standards authority has an explicit remit to enforce this sort of behaviour).

And that leads us on to Knox (in particular) and her legal/PR strategy. It's now abundantly clear (IMO, judging by your words...) that you are (to say the least) highly suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context; and it's more than abundantly clear that you can only interpret Knox's legal/PR efforts as a knowing attempt to deceive (and, in your world, to attempt to pervert justice into the bargain). It appears impossible for you to even conceive of the notion that Knox and her lawyers and PR company might be trying to persuade from a position of truth and honesty. Because your position on this is ignorant and biassed. Amirite?

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.

 

[Vixen]

Giuliano Mignini recently tried to "persuade", or more properly persuade (without the quotes) the Italian court system that Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel had criminally defamed him, as well as civilly defamed him.

What we know at this point is that that persuasion, or "persuasion", seems to have failed. The judge adjudicating the criminal part of this allegation threw it out. Mignini himself abandoned his civil suit against the pair.

Out of all the times one might wish to be suspicious of ANY attempt to persuade in any context, why is it that Vixen s not suspicious of a seemingly failed attempt to persuade a court?

There's a promise out there by these folk, now two weeks' overdue, that all of that had been as part of a bargain in which Sollecito and Gumbel would simply, formally apologize for the alleged offending claims. That apology is overdue, and make one additionally suspicious that this group of conspiracists simply make stuff up as they go.

Maybe Vixen would have better luck evaluating her concerns about bad-PR outlets by turning her understanding of Statement Analysis on to places like TJMK and the fake-Wiki.

When two parties are in dispute and they have to take it to an arbitrator, then of course each will need to put forward their case, and the arbitrator/judge decides whose argument is the stronger, or more closely aligned with the rules/law.

Ditto in a criminal court. The prosecution is obliged to explain why they consider the defendant culpable, and the defendant has the platform to defend themself.

A court of law is the correct place to do this. Not through an advertising/PR agency.

This is because in a court of law, ALL parties are entitled to have DISCLOSURE of ALL the evidence. Advertisers will conceal or play down the bad points and will not disclose that a competitior is superior. A court of law is TRANSPARENT. It is open to the public and submissions to the court can be made under legal privilege. A party cannot tamper with the witnesses or the evidence, nor seek to subvert the course of justice.

A PR agency acting for a defendant charged with murder has no such compunctions. They will seek to undermine the case of the other party and to deliberately mislead in order to get their client off the hook.

 

[bagels]

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.

I can't tell if this is brilliant irony seeing as advertising and PR is what allowed a bumbling Italian police department to turn a mistake with a crime where a local burglar raped and murdered a student in her own home into a world wide sensation about a random American girl on the cover of every tabloid in the world next to pictures of evidence wrapped giant cleavers and bloody crime scenes.

The prosecution's presentation fooled a lot of people (such as yourself) hook line and sinker.

People that actually stop and take moment to think, like for example Grinder, looked at the initial press conference on the 6th (before anything was done by anyone) and went, wait...what they're saying isn't adding up...

Meanwhile this is what people do who consume whatever slop is shoved into their brain without thought:

Spoiled little b***ch. I haven't been so angry at a suspect since Chester Stiles.

 

[Bill Williams]

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.

It would be an interesting exercise to apply Statement Analysis to the tirade quoted above.

Take the first three sentences as a starting point:

Unlike you, I have a business qualification.​

Statement Analysis says: how does the person making the tirade know this about the other? For me, a reader unfamiliar with the "expertise" of either of the verbal combatants, there's no basis for saying, "Unlike you," unless it was missed.

I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works.​

Statement Analysis says: given that the first sentence only mentions the broad occupation of "business", and makes no mention of the level of "qualification" achieved, on what basis is the first sentence connected to the second? Statement Analysis would make note that the person making the tirade has not remotely established credentials in making the additional statement, "I am willing to bet...."

You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo.​

Statement Analysis says: this is a bewildering sentence, as it is factual that any objective reader thought he/she was being set up for a claim, "If you think Nike is limited to being a mere logo." After thinking that that was what the person making the tirade was going to say, she shifts counter-intuitively to claiming that Nike is/was a "mere logo".

Indeed, if the statement Vixen makes is true, she should be in touch immediately with all Nike shareholders who have bet their portfolios that Nike is something MORE than a logo.

Yet the Statement Analysts gathered around the iPad here agree on one thing - the person making the tirade is simply pounding out expert-like gobble-dee-gook, trying to sound like she knows what she's taking about, in an area that she, by her own admission, only has a "business qualification". Such claim does not remotely indicate any expertise in advertising or PR.

So sez Statement Analysis.

 

[Vixen]

Oh right. So go ahead and "demonstrably prove" all of that to us, won't you? Don't forget, in the course of doing so, that you're claiming that "demonstrable proof" exists that:

Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches. (my bolding for emphasis)



*gets popcorn*

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.