I had a new look at the first post in this thread, this time with a view to identifying explicit and implicit assumption:
And therein lies an acknowledgment of what you, in fact, did, Oystein. You started out with a bias; namely, a bias in favor of finding
assumption. You cannot do that, on the one hand, and then stake out a claim to objective findings, on the other.
However, your candor is, nonetheless appreciated. It helps to identify what is at stake in the posting process. I have often said that emotion trumps reason. You have shown a predisposition to wanting find things that I post to be 'wrong.' In a recent post of yours, you went so far as to admit you were playing 'gotcha.' Gotcha is an emotional game constructed so as to be able to claim one is winning and another is losing.
The subjects here are, imho, too important for gotcha gaming. I do not play such games.
Your quest to find and accuse me of assumption, at any cost, as shall be confirmed, is merely a game, Oystein. I do wish you would reconsider your posting stance. Especially in this thread. The danger posed by the MIC is real and growing. You could be of great assistance here were you to put your skills to work on the side of taking the threat of the MIC seriously, but, so far, you have not done that.
SAIC being über secretive implies assumptions not clearly stated, namely: There is information suitable for a public web site, but intentionally withheld.
No, Oystein, you have framed the matter in an entirely propagandistic, favorable to the MIC, way. Here's how you did that: "...information suitable for a public website...". Right there, that begs the question. It suggests SAIC has a right to hide information, to use secrecy. NO, Oystein, secrecy is the issue, the danger, not the excuse.
You are not advancing the art of finding assumption. Instead, you are pandering to the MIC.
If the assumption is correct that SAIC withholds most information about its "range of expertise in weaponry and in psyops", then the claim that these are "fairly astonishing" is an assumption.
That is twisted, Oystein and simply does not follow. First of all, you misrepresent the meaning of what I posted. I thought by now you would have caught on to the correct way to challenge meaning; namely, by double checking for accuracy. In that way, you properly stake out a claim to objectivity by not jumping to a conclusion. Give the other person a chance to be clear if you think they have said something that might be illogical. That is also a way to keep the discussion away from the 'gotcha gaming' aspect.
Everyone misstates things from time to time. If you would de-emphasize the need to claim someone else is wrong or lying or some such, you might have a more fruitful exchange of ideas.
Please consider these suggestions as being friendly indicators of how dialogue might be improved for all concerned parties.
jammonius assumes that some lurkers might have information that confoirm his assumptions and askes them to adopt his assumptions.
No, that is not correct, Oystein. Once again, that claim would have been ideal for a double check for accuracy. I appeal to lurkers who might have experience with the MIC to post up. Chillzero was an example of that happening in this thread. There are others. I think it was Dtugg who disclosed that his father was an SAICer. There may have been others as well.
And, now that the subject has been broached. I here call upon MIC people to post up. We need to hear from ARA
The phrase "I think" clearly indicates that jammonius is merely assuming that "both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on"
It is not wrong to say "I think" is it Oystein?
More assumptions here: devices that "would" have been used, he assumes "the simulation of hijackings of aircraft".
Wait, Oystein, you are not really being analytical in the above. You are making mere claims without any demonstration of assumption, especially of the unwarranted variety. Assumption, per se, is not improper as it is useful to help speed discussion along. Assumption is only improper when it brings into the discussion key elements that have not been shown to exist or to be valid.
Not every assumption is improper. That is why if you are going to make the claim of 'assumption' you need to demonstrate the harm. Some use of assumption is harmless and some isn't. Usually, when assumption is incorporated into a rhetorical question, it is harmful.
"Might" and "might" 0 assumption and assumption.
You fail to demonstrate the harm you think exists.
There is no proof of SAIC controlling security, it is merely an assumption. "May still do so" is an assumption admitted.
I posted my proof in post # 3.
So this thread started with an assumption riddled post by jammonius.
A bad start. According to jammonius' own standards.
The quoted claim has not been proven at all. Further, I here assert it is false.
