John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 11:23am:


Now now, JS, that's unfair. Before we establish dishonesty on the part of a fellow poster, we must first ask questions. This helps us to clarify the poster's thoughts, thinking and beliefs.

As an example, we might ask for FD's views on a particular subject. We then carefully read his response, and if we require additional information, we follow up with a supplementary. This means we're curious, keen to hear what FD thinks.

As another example, we might ask FD to clarify his views, typically through the use of a close-ended question, which allows for a more succinct response. E.g, do prawns feel pain? This question allows only one of two responses; yes or no. We may choose to establish this at the outset, informing our fellow poster that a simple yes or no will suffice.

We do so in the spirit of curiosity, careful to hear our fellow member's views, ready to capture any poignant information. Another method is the confessional, where we encourage the poster to say what he or she really thinks. Some members worry about their reputations and are wary of revealing their views. We direct such posters to be clear and concise. We remind them of the consequences of being seen as fearful in the light of our penetrative truth. We direct them to confess and, if relevant, to show contrition for any potential flaws in character. Are you a racist? We might ask. We might follow up with a courteous, please explain? Or an invitation to brevity, as outlined above; a simple yes or no will suffice.

It might help if you asked FD himself if he is a dishonest wanker. This gives him the opportunity to clarify his views or, if he disagrees, explain why.

If so, you can follow up with another question. As an example; are you a racist?

Our poster may, of course, concede at this point. If so, you have done your job in revealing the truth. But each negative response is fraught with the inference of hostile denial, which gives their response little or no credibility. In most cases, posters understand this problem and avoid answering altogether. In this case, you have them for avoidance, which is nearly as bad as denial.

Most posters will attempt to distract or divert at this point. The best way to keep them on track is through subsequent questioning. We can even put their diversion to them directly, as an example; why are you evading the question?

Most posters will respond with direct questions of their own. The best way to respond to this is to stick to one's role as the questioner. Such questions should never be answered. I cannot emphasise this strongly enough. 

Pointing out that you asked first rarely works to quell a rebellious querant. One should resolve such a stalemate with further questions. That's a question, one might say, would you care for an answer? If not, why not? What is the poster trying to hide? Are they scared? Why are they scared? We're all friends here, yes? Why evade such a question? Are they being dishonest? Are they having a wank?

Are they a racist?

As you can see, JS, our posts can draw much truth from our fellow members through the simple use of questions. Try adding a question mark to the end of your posts. You may well be surprised with the results.

Why not ask FD a question?

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 4:26pm:



Karnal has long been one of my favourite posters on here. When he wants to he can present a better, more articulate argument than pretty much anyone else on here. Of course this is often wasted on ozpol so K often opts to use sarcasm in most of his posts. Those who are new and unfamiliar with him fail to recognise that sarcasm, to their detriment.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 3:29pm:


but we DO "do" entrenched disadvantaged in this country; which makes the issue a bit tricky, because the MOST systemically disadvantaged happen to be blacks...as confirmed by the egregious gap.

Quote:


We most certainly do, they are to be found in the vast bureaucracy maintaining the poverty industry - euphemistically called 'social security'.

We have just learned (in the Robodebt enquiry)  they were responsible for suicides, as a result of enabling/enforcing the Coalition's sick 'dole-bludger' ideology.

Quote:


Yes, well it would help if we could get rid of the poverty industry; and then moderates like Pearson would probably be able to intervene on behalf of the rest of us who want to climb Uluru etc.


Quote:


aquascoot is a sink or swim kind of guy - not into enabling/promoting wellbeing for all...

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 4:26pm:


You're easily amused.

And FATTYWISK is right ..... never answer a question.

Just pose another question.

As slippery as you can get ... dishonest in fact.

Gnads wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 6:36pm:


Excuse I, Gonads, I believed you confessed to being a racist, am I correct?

You're really quite brave, no?

Gnads wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 6:38pm:


No

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 8:36pm:

'countless communities'.

Have another scotch.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 11^th, 2023 at 8:36pm:


That's because it goes straight over your head