[FRIAM] whackadoodles go mainstream!

[Steven A Smith]

Glen -

> You can't *objectively* tell. That's the whole point.
I guess my assumption is that in principle I *can* tell objectively but
this level of propaganda (if that is what it is) is crafted to be
*difficult* but not impossible.
>  But what you can do is check your impressions against those of others. My personal impression is that this "article" is complete bullshit. I feel *certain* that at least some of the people here, if they read the whole article, will conclude the opposite.
Assuming this is actually *crafted propaganda* rather than just
*wrongheaded justification* I would like to believe that the *deliberate
duplicity* would be exposable by inspection and then somewhat obvious in
hindsight.   And yes, this is how the TL;DR aspect would seem to
contribute to it's opacity.
> I won't list my bullshit triggers the article sets off. Bullshit replicates exponentially faster and more efficient than its debunking. So my debunking would be lost in the wind. But I can point to 1 easy step you can take:
>
>   https://smmry.com/https://project-evidence.github.io/#&SM_LENGTH=10
>
> Play around with the length. It's interesting.
Yes, this is a very interesting "lens" into such a large corpus.  Maybe
I'll try pushing one of my long-winded posts in the archive through
SMMRY and see if I recognize my own "harping".


Thanks,

 - Steve