--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > authfriend wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > >> authfriend wrote: > >> > > <snip> > > > >>> Not that this isn't all horrendously dire, but it really > >>> doesn't help to exaggerate it. > >>> > >> Or maybe it does. I've said before it's a tug-a-war and > >> sometimes you have to exaggerate to win or just pull > >> things back into reason. > > > > It's *way more* than bad enough to do that just by > > reporting it accurately. That's my point. > > It's not necessarily about exaggeration either. In this > case even I heard that by a number of credible sources the > rig fell on the well. How do you know that what you read > was *not* propaganda from BP or the oil bastards
You mean, the article titled "Mother of all gushers could kill Earths oceans" could be propaganda from BP or the oil bastards? Maybe you want to go back and read my post again... Actually, what you should have learned is that your sources weren't as credible as you assumed, at least on that point. Do you have any idea how big that rig was? The idea that it would have sunk a mile straight down through the ocean and landed neatly on top of the wellhead makes no sense just on its face. It's not like dropping a pebble into a pond. <snip> > > What you really need to do is build *trust* by being > > scrupulously accurate and doing your bit to debunk > > unrealistic alarmism. Then folks are much more likely > > to pay attention to your recommendations, rather than > > dismissing them out of hand. > > Why is it so important for someone to have folks *pay > attention* to their recommendations? Is it about > *the ego?* First you say you need to exaggerate to get people's attention, now you say their attention isn't important and it's egotistical to want it. Better do a little rethinking here...
