None so blind…
I’m sure you understand when people are skeptical that someone claims to have evidence but can’t show it. We’ve been dealing with that sort of talk non-stop from certain parties since the 2020 elections.
Suffice to say, you look like you’re full of it.
I typed in “what is the significance of the number 88”
No Hitler results where you say they should be. More importantly, no mention of a racing driver. Lots of Chinese good luck, angel numbers and numerology bollocks.
Nothing in the “people also ask” either.
How far down the list am I supposed to search to find what I’m looking for? when at best I don’t know what I’m looking for, or at worst I’m looking for the wrong thing because someone thought it funny to misdirect me.
well, I know I’d have to be incredibly stupid to assume that a random other person must necessarily choose exactly the same search terms as me.
Go try it. anything to say?
If it bothers you, ask for an example and we go from there.
It you don’t want to do that, then don’t. I honestly care not one jot. There are plenty of people out there who have no problem engaging honestly and asking further questions.
Not can’t. won’t (although providing any of the work-related comments would indeed be a breach of contract)
Please feel free to remain sceptical, it is not important to me in the slightest that you believe it.
I see clearly how you happily ignore the bad faith of others and flat out ignore or willfully misinterpret whatever I do provide that is inconvenient to you.
There is a vanishingly small chance that anything I did supply would satisfy you in any way.
I know what is said to me, those who say it know. That’s enough for me.
I also have a personal anecdote that exactly proves my point, but I can’t share it with you.
Is it personal, private correspondence? Because if it is it would be a horrible breach of trust to share it.
Actually the more I think about it, if you think using a personal anecdote that would breach someone’s privacy is somehow the right thing to do then I don’t think you are a particularly trustworthy person.
Yes, and it is precisely on point and totally destroys your arguments. Sadly, I can’t share it.
I have shared your messages with a psychiatrist who is a dear friend. She concluded that they are the ravings of a sociopath. Sorry I can’t share her name and credentials here, but you must believe me.
I guess you can do that, or just type in “88”, which would be easier.
Now, your chosen search terms do come up with some other meanings as well, so good for you for making it more complex than you needed to.
The first link is still to wikipedia, which still has the entry about white nationalism and supremacy.
They are there. Sure, there’s lots of stuff about angels, but it mentions white nationalism and supremacy as well.
Why is that more important? If you think that for some reason, you have severely poor communication skills.
As far as you want, I suppose. It’s your ignorance. You can choose to alleviate it or to wallow in it. Seems you’ve made your choice here.
The search term is the number, two digits, “88”. I suppose it was presumptive of me to assume that you would be able to figure that out on your own.
Sure, you’re a fucking idiot, and wallow in your ignorance.
Okay, give an example of a person that you know “would prefer to have their claims to be accepted without question and take any questioning of it to be tantamount to a personal attack but that can’t be helped.”
And then we can go from there.
I did find an example of the sort of person that you are talking about:
The way that you whine when the claims that you make are questioned, I suppose maybe you were just talking about yourself there? It actually does completely validate your statement.
If you type “what is the significance of 88” into Google, two of the first four results are about its use as a hate/neo-Nazi symbol. “What is the symbolism of 88” gets you mostly references to hate groups.
I still like the song “Rocket 88” but I’m not blind to the number’s embrace by sleazebags.
And if you really think about it . . . it’s what you’ve done.
I taught a business writing/communication course ages ago. The one thing we really pounded into the students was “Don’t use passive voice!” “No passive voice!” Passive voice is an impediment to clear communication. It’s used by folks who want to obfuscate.
Just sayin’,
When I type “what is the significance of the number 88” into Google, the very first hit is this one:
And yes, it starts out talking about it as a lucky number, but halfway down the page it talks about “In white nationalism and supremacism”.
Or if I’m wanting to know what the significance is of the number 88, perhaps that is a reasonable search term to use?
they are not there where you said they would be, they are not jumping out as the most relevant or most important.
I was told specifically that 88 was significant because it was the number of a racing driver. OK, perhaps he was someone guilty of some offence that people imagine I’d also done. Didn’t turn up in the search.
What you are suffering from is an inability to imagine what it is like not to know what 88 stands for. It is “the curse of knowledge” It is a known thing and you’ve fallen for it completely here.
in short you are asked to tap out a tune, on a table and then ask another person to identify it. Because you know the tune, you can hear it in your head and so when you are asked to estimate how obvious that tune is to the listener you will massively over-estimate how recognisable it is.
The tapper cannot unknow what they know.
that is what you’ve done here.
so in other words, the results you got are exactly what I said I got and in order to get to anything about Adolf Hitler I’d have to leave the most relevant search results and go digging in the individual pages?
I refer you to the reply that I just gave regarding “the curse of knowledge” you’ve just exhibited it too.
I love it when people say “in other words” and then type some other words and are therefore literally correct, but their other words have nothing to do with what was said.
Atamasame wrote “halfway down the page.” “Digging in the individual pages” is not an accurate paraphrase.
Edit: oh shit, I just realized what you meant. You mean that you would actually have to leave the Google Search Results page. This may be the single laziest research attempt I’ve ever seen, an unwillingness to click a single link, but it’s slightly closer to what was said (you still wouldn’t have to visit pages, plural; a single page would suffice).
I’m sure that secret correspondence with you has assured you that you’re a good communicator, but every actual example of communication here shows how bad you are at it. This is yet one more example.
And @Atamasama actually exaggerated how difficult it’d be to find. Here are the steps:
- Conduct your search.
- Click the first link (to the wikipedia article).
- Read the table of contents.
- Notice the third entry, “Cultural significance,” and be like, “ooh, I bet that’s where I should go.”
- Read the sub-entries–“in Chinese culture,” “in amateur radio,” and “in white nationalism and supremacism”–and be like, “Oh yeah, they think I’m a fuckin racist, I bet that last one is relevant.”
- Click the handy link to a section on the same page, and read it.
Google is sensitive to where you are, and (depending on your settings) also to what you’ve searched for in the past. That being said, the first hit i got was Wikipedia, which indeed, starts with good luck but also discusses neo Nazis. The second hit i got was about neo Nazis, and that was obvious from the search page, without opening any links.
Not that opening the Wikipedia link is a difficult or unusual thing to do when you want to get an overview of some topic you are unfamiliar with…
If you consider “opening up a page and looking at the table of contents at the very top” to be digging, you definitely have really low standards when it comes to effort.
For what little it may be worth, I spent several years writing financial reports for large investment firms and they insisted on passive voice. As in, if I wrote “Client X placed a deal on 10/15/2020” (or whatever), our in-house quality control team would return it to me with a little note saying “Please rephrase as ‘On 10/15/2020 a deal was placed by client X’”.
I used to think it was crazy, but some places prefer it.