Salmond denies sexual misconduct allegations

[ProfessorDavey]

  So what did the rest of the paragraph say, and why did you quotemine?

You made no further comment except 'Ooft', that's it, nothing more, that is the entirely of your quote.

How can I be quotemining if I reproduce your entire quote.

[Nearly Sane]

You made no further comment except 'Ooft', that's it, nothing more, that is the entirely of your quote.

How can I be quotemining if I reproduce your entire quote.

Did you even read my last post -the quotemining isn't the 'ooft'. Go back reread my last post slowly and you will perhaps be able to see the quotemine. It's made quite explicit, and I'm sure if you concentrate hard you  will be able to understand.

[Nearly Sane]

No - but if you don't agree I'd expect some comment to that effect. And you'd probably balance with links to opinion pieces you do agree with.

So if someone routinely links to articles which are pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon (23 times), without comment that he doesn't agree with that sentiment, virtually never links to articles that are anti-Salmond and/or pro-Sturgeon (once), then I think it is reasonable to draw a conclusion that the person in question is ... err ... pro-Salmond and/or anti-Sturgeon.

Why are you ignoring the 2 posts where I quote what I wrote  about Salmond? They aren't fan boy statements. Is it because it's too hard to deal with your little fantasy crumbling away?

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you even read my last post -the quotemining isn't the 'ooft'. Go back reread my last post slowly and you will perhaps be able to see the quotemine. It's made quite explicit, and I'm sure if you concentrate hard you  will be able to understand.

Yes - and I've gone back and read it really, really slowly.

There is no quotemining - in my post that you complained was quotemining 'Ooft!' I used your entire quote from an earlier post, which was a single word - 'Ooft!'.

And given that the context was you rather patronisingly claiming that your arguments are complex and cannot be seems as simplistic, then to reply that one of your supposedly complex and sophisticated argument was ... well ... 'Ooft!' (in its entirety - nothing left out from your quote whatsoever).

Give up NS - accept that I'm not quotemining and move on.

[Nearly Sane]

Yes - and I've gone back and read it really, really slowly.

There is no quotemining - in my post that you complained was quotemining 'Ooft!' I used your entire quote from an earlier post, which was a single word - 'Ooft!'.

And given that the context was you rather patronisingly claiming that your arguments are complex and cannot be seems as simplistic, then to reply that one of your supposedly complex and sophisticated argument was ... well ... 'Ooft!' (in its entirety - nothing left out from your quote whatsoever).

Give up NS - accept that I'm not quotemining and move on.

And again for the hard of comprehension. I  did not say the 'Ooft' was a quotemine.In fact I have explicitly stated that the 'Ooft' was not a quotemine. Have you understood that bit? I know it's pretty simple stuff but you don't seem able to understand even that.


Next I helped you out in reply 597 by quoting what was the quotemine, and asking you about that. Just for you, here it is again

As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding.

 
Now read that slowly, maybe a couple of times, you can ask someone else for help if you need.

So what did the rest of the paragraph say, and why did you quotemine?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

If you don't want to be described as a Salmond fan-boy I suspect you shouldn't link to article after article that is pro-Salmond and anti-Sturgeon.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck.

From my experience, it only walks like a duck, looks like a duck and sounds like a duck in your head PD.

You've spouted your "it's telling" assertions before without any compelling evidence to support them. 

I have been following this issue and I really don't care one way or the other regarding Sturgeon or Salmond other than it is quite interesting reading about politicians getting caught out in their lies or not following proper procedure because they think themselves able to get away with it. It wouldn't surprise me if both Sturgeon and Salmond have lied to/ intentionally misled Parliament. People do it quite often if they think they can get away with it, and politicians have repeatedly proved themselves to have the same weaknesses as the general public.

It's always more interesting catching members of a government ignoring or abusing due process or involved in a stich-up or lying, as a government's greater access to resources and the power they wield over people's lives means that government abuse of process usually has a relatively greater negative impact compared to non-government abuses.

Sturgeon's husband contradicting Sturgeon's testimony to the Holyrood inquiry about whether Sturgeon considered the sexual assault allegations against Salmond as party or government business was interesting. As were the articles about when Sturgeon found out about the allegations against Salmond and whether she knowingly misled Parliament about the date she found out.

I don't think these views make me pro-Salmond, I think they just make me anti-government Ministers being intentionally careless with the truth for political gain especially where it involves mishandling processes set up to impartially investigate allegations of abuse.

[ProfessorDavey]

I  did not say the 'Ooft' was a quotemine.

I'm sorry NS - you did - it is there for all to see in reply595:

Where you describe my reply 593 as 'What a lovely piece of quotemining.'

You will note of course that in my reply 593 I only use a single word quote of yours, namely 'Ooft' - so if you think I am quotemining (as you claimed in 595) it can only refer to ''Ooft' as there is no other quote to refer to.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry NS - you did - it is there for all to see in reply595:

Where you describe my reply 593 as 'What a lovely piece of quotemining.'

You will note of course that in my reply 593 I only use a single word quote of yours, namely 'Ooft' - so if you think I am quotemining (as you claimed in 595) it can only refer to ''Ooft' as there is no other quote to refer to.

At the top of your reply, this is you quoting me

As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding.

I've pointed out a couple of times that this is the quotemine. Now you are denying that the quote is in there. This sort of denial of facts makes indulging in your fantasy world pretty pointless. But let me give you one last chance to try to accept that the above is a quote from me in reply 593, that you apologise for denying it.

[Spud]

All sounds a bit fishy to me.

[ProfessorDavey]

At the top of your reply, this is you quoting me


I've pointed out a couple of times that this is the quotemine. Now you are denying that the quote is in there. This sort of denial of facts makes indulging in your fantasy world pretty pointless. But let me give you one last chance to try to accept that the above is a quote from me in reply 593, that you apologise for denying it.

Stop talking non-sense NS.

For something to be a quote mine, by definition, it has to involve a quote - the clue is in the name.

The only quote I used in my comment in reply 593 was Ooft!, so that is the only part of the post that could possibly be a quote mine.

The first sentence is entirely my own - it isn't a quote and therefore cannot possibly be a quotemine, as it contains no quote from you.

So to give my reply in full (with my annotation):

Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)

'Ooft!' (a quote from you, so could plausibly be a quotemine - but isn't)

Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding. (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)

[Nearly Sane]

Stop talking non-sense NS.

For something to be a quote mine, by definition, it has to involve a quote - the clue is in the name.

The only quote I used in reply 593 was Ooft!, so that is the only part of the post that could possibly be a quote mine.

The first sentence is entirely my own - it isn't a quote and therefore cannot possibly be a quotemine, as it contains no quote from you.

So to give my reply in full (with my annotation):

Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)

'Ooft!' (a quote from you, so could plausibly be a quotemine - but isn't)

Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding. (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)

I  pointed out the quote you use at the start of reply 593 3 times now. You are denying reality.

[ProfessorDavey]

I  pointed out the quote you use at the start of reply 593 3 times now. You are denying reality.

No I'm not - the only quote that I included in my comment in reply593 is Ooft!

The only quote in your reply595 when you accuse me of quotemining is Ooft!

Please show me where in reply 595 (your accusation of quotemining) that there is any other quote except Ooft! - there isn't.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Here you go NS - virtually every external news/opinion piece you've linked to on this thread, with an indication as to whether they are:

Factual and if has an element of opinion whether it is pro/anti Salmond/Strugeon, and in very rare cases, pro-the women making the allegations. A couple a paywalled so I cannot comment:

PD - I had a read of some of the articles that you assert are pro-Salmond. After I while I realised that 1)your assertion was your opinion as the articles do not read to me as being pro-Salmond or where they do report some pro-Salmond opinions you do not seem to take into account the context. 

So I did not see the point of reading every article after reading the 1st few you claimed were pro-Salmond but did not appear that way to me. Maybe you're just biased.
 
For example:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428570
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon

Why is this BBC article pro-Salmond? It reports that Salmond won the judicial review. "The government's admission that it had not followed the correct procedures came during a hearing at the Court of Session on Tuesday morning."
Which parts do you interpret as being pro-Salmond?

https://www.thenational.scot/politics/17343668.andrew-tickell-salmond-legal-win-is-failure-of-apparent-bias/
Factual – largely pro-Salmond

Same question - why do you read it as being largely pro-Salmond?

It reports "The decision does not exonerate Mr Salmond of the underlying allegations of sexual harassment – which he strenuously denies. It does not close the case or end the ongoing police investigation. It doesn’t tell us anything about whether the claims made against him are credible or not....when he launched his judicial review petition the former First Minister’s case seemed mainly to focus on the fairness of the complaints procedure itself.....The Court of Session made no determination – for or against – the merits of these arguments yesterday. Instead, its decision was limited to the question of apparent bias. Bias isn’t concerned with the inherent fairness of the Scottish Government’s protocol – but the outlook and behaviour of key decision-makers in this particular case.....The Scottish Government conceded the civil servant’s investigation could be tainted by this impression. Reviewing the paper trail, it became apparent the functionary responsible for investigating the complaints had had prior contact with the complainers about their case. The precise nature of this contact is not in the public domain."

https://archive.is/aDdVn#selection-1569.150-1569.458
Pro-Salmond, anti-Sturgeon

I had a look at the context of this article and it was posted in relation to whether there would be an SNP split because of the pro-Salmond vs anti-Salmond factions. In #408 NS says "Unlike anchorman, I think there are primarily 2 factions at the moment and when parties get to having fewer factions  it then becomes more problematic and likelier to lead to a split. There are many on Salmond's side talkinb about this being a conspiracy pulled together between the women in the case, the civil service, the anti Salmond faction, the   Uk govt and the security services. Now if this was just a minor faction that wouldn't matter but it isn't."

https://theconversation.com/amp/alex-salmond-acquittal-looming-fall-out-for-snp-could-ignite-civil-war-134820?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=bylinetwitterbutton&__twitter_impression=true
Largely pro-Salmond

Again why do you see this as largely pro-Salmond?

This was posted by NS in the context of showing the possibility of an SNP civil war "In the immediate aftermath of the decision, much of the political tension within the SNP that had been in hiatus during the criminal proceedings resurfaced, if only temporarily, due to the COVID-19 issue....Coupled with a potential internal SNP battle which could expose the bitterness and bad blood simmering within the party, the long-term effects of the Salmond acquittal could be immense."

The article states "A picture of this stressful workplace emerged, where the most powerful person in government was failing fully to respect personal space, an issue that caused Gordon Jackson to say that Salmond “could have been a better man on occasion”. That, however, did not amount to criminality." That does not make Salmond look good.

The article supports the bringing of criminal charges against Salmond "There will always be people found not guilty, but it does not mean that potential criminal behaviour should not be investigated and brought to court for a jury to decide upon."

Like I said I did not see the point of continuing, given the first few articles seemed to not support your assertion that the articles are pro-Salmond or you missed the context in which they were posted.

[Nearly Sane]

No I'm not - the only quote that I included in my comment in reply593 is Ooft!

The only quote in your reply595 when you accuse me of quotemining is Ooft!

Please show me where in reply 595 (your accusation of quotemining) that there is any other quote except Ooft! - there isn't.

At the very start of reply 593 there is the quote from me that I have quoted in posts. It's even helpfully in a little box following the system generated statement that it is a quote of NearlySane.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Stop talking non-sense NS.

For something to be a quote mine, by definition, it has to involve a quote - the clue is in the name.

The only quote I used in my comment in reply 593 was Ooft!, so that is the only part of the post that could possibly be a quote mine.

The first sentence is entirely my own - it isn't a quote and therefore cannot possibly be a quotemine, as it contains no quote from you.

So to give my reply in full (with my annotation):

Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)

'Ooft!' (a quote from you, so could plausibly be a quotemine - but isn't)

Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding. (my words - no quote from you, therefore cannot be a quotemine)

It's really not difficult to see the quote mine referred to by NS - it took me all of a couple of minutes.

NS wrote in #591 "As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding. It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.

I do find it bizarre in your rather bizarre desire to cling to your little fantasy that you have decided to ignore what I actually wrote about Salmond."

PD then quote-mined #591 by only quoting "As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding." and replied

"Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting

'Ooft!'

Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding."

Then in #595 NS pointed out that PD had quote-mined #591.

[ProfessorDavey]

At the very start of reply 593 there is the quote from me that I have quoted in posts. It's even helpfully in a little box following the system generated statement that it is a quote of NearlySane.

Which you don't include in your reply where you accuse me of quotemining - how can that accusation refer to something that you don't include nor mention in your actual post. It is nonsense.

And even if it is the bit that you don't refer to, it still isn't quotemining as the point I made in relationship to it isn't altered even were I to have used a larger quote. Your point was that when linking to articles your comments allude to the complex nature of the arguments, while mine are simplistic.

Yet of course your comments to the links include such detailed and sophisticate arguments such as Ooft!. There is no quotemining as exactly the same comment could have been made, with no greater or lesser relevance, had I included the whole post - I chose not to as I like to focus on the nub of the argument.

You seem not to understand the difference between quotemining and someone posting a comment you don't like.

[ProfessorDavey]

I didn't say that ignored the articles, rather my fulsome approbation including referring to her as one of Scotland's best journalists, and you being ignorant of the hatred that many Salmondites have for her, in part for these articles.


As to the bits that I agree with in those articles, we're back at your overall simplistic understanding. It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.

I do find it bizarre in your rather bizarre desire to cling to your little fantasy that you have decided to ignore what I actually wrote about Salmond.

Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting

'Ooft!'

Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding.

[Nearly Sane]

Which you don't include in your reply where you accuse me of quotemining - how can that accusation refer to something that you don't include nor mention in your actual post. It is nonsense.

And even if it is the bit that you don't refer to, it still isn't quotemining as the point I made in relationship to it isn't altered even were I to have used a larger quote. Your point was that when linking to articles your comments allude to the complex nature of the arguments, while mine are simplistic.

Yet of course your comments to the links include such detailed and sophisticate arguments such as Ooft!. There is no quotemining as exactly the same comment could have been made, with no greater or lesser relevance, had I included the whole post - I chose not to as I like to focus on the nub of the argument.

You seem not to understand the difference between quotemining and someone posting a comment you don't like.

I pointed out what I meant numerous times and you just denied that there was such a quote in your reply 593.  Pity even in struggling to admit that you were wrong about your reply 593, you are unable to apologise.

[ProfessorDavey]

There you go NS - you now cannot accuse me of quotemining as I've now included the whole of your earlier post.

Note of course that the inclusion of the full post makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning or relevance of my comment - which means that it cannot be quotemining as that involves taking a selected quote out of context to change its meaning. In this case it doesn't, albeit using the whole longer comment is more cumbersome as the key point was your rather patronising suggestion that my understanding, as demonstrated in my comments is simplistic, while yours is nuanced by complexity and sophistication.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh, yes - your really complex and sophisticated arguments such as posting

'Ooft!'

Tell me, NS, is it the exclamation mark that makes your comment too complex for my simplistic understanding.

Just to note that in the post of mine that you quoted (note the quote is the first part of your post that I am replying to here), I was pointing out that you were continuing to ignore what I  actually said about Salmond. I provided those quotes. You are still ignoring them.

[ProfessorDavey]

I pointed out what I meant numerous times and you just denied that there was such a quote in your reply 593.  Pity even in struggling to admit that you were wrong about your reply 593, you are unable to apologise.

The only quote in 595 where you accused me of quotemining is Ooft! - why would anyone consider that you were referring to some other quote that you don't include in the post where you accuse me of quotemining.

Nonetheless I have demonstrated that your accusation of quotemining (even if it relates to a quote you didn't include in your post accusing me of quotemining) was not, in fact, quotemining as my comment is just as valid (or invalid) with the whole quote - there is no change in meaning.

[Nearly Sane]

There you go NS - you now cannot accuse me of quotemining as I've now included the whole of your earlier post.

Note of course that the inclusion of the full post makes no difference whatsoever to the meaning or relevance of my comment - which means that it cannot be quotemining as that involves taking a selected quote out of context to change its meaning. In this case it doesn't, albeit using the whole longer comment is more cumbersome as the key point was your rather patronising suggestion that my understanding, as demonstrated in my comments is simplistic, while yours is nuanced by complexity and sophistication.

  Your understanding is obviously simplistic  since you think there is the tediously simple idea of pro Salmond or pro Sturgeon in this. As the full quote makes clear, that isn't the case.

And are you suggesting that referring to Salmond as 'yesterday's dick', in addition to all the other comments I have listed about Salmond that you have ignored, is what a fan boy would say then as well as simplistic, I think you have basic problems of comprehension.

[Nearly Sane]

The only quote in 595 where you accused me of quotemining is Ooft! - why would anyone consider that you were referring to some other quote that you don't include in the post where you accuse me of quotemining.

Nonetheless I have demonstrated that your accusation of quotemining (even if it relates to a quote you didn't include in your post accusing me of quotemining) was not, in fact, quotemining as my comment is just as valid (or invalid) with the whole quote - there is no change in meaning.

No, you are now just lying. There are a number of posts which I said exactly what was the qoutemine. Stop embarrassing yourself

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Which you don't include in your reply where you accuse me of quotemining - how can that accusation refer to something that you don't include nor mention in your actual post. It is nonsense.

And even if it is the bit that you don't refer to, it still isn't quotemining as the point I made in relationship to it isn't altered even were I to have used a larger quote. Your point was that when linking to articles your comments allude to the complex nature of the arguments, while mine are simplistic.

The point that NS seemed to be making is not what you have claimed here. I read NS's point as being that "It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent."

Yet of course your comments to the links include such detailed and sophisticate arguments such as Ooft!. There is no quotemining as exactly the same comment could have been made, with no greater or lesser relevance, had I included the whole post - I chose not to as I like to focus on the nub of the argument.

You seem not to understand the difference between quotemining and someone posting a comment you don't like.

It's quote-mining because you left out the rest of NS's post when you quoted, and did not address it.

NS thinks Salmond is "yesterday's dick", which then disproves your rather childish assertion that NS is a "Salmond fan-boy".  You have been shown to be wrong in your assessment of this issue a few times now or at least the courts did not agree with your legal assessments of when judicial reviews are justified. I think your judgement appears to be clouded by bias.

I agree with NS. It is possible to not like Salmond and also criticise the Scottish government's handling of the sexual assault allegations against Salmond. Why don't you address that point? Interpreting criticism of the government as support for Salmond is simplistic.

[ProfessorDavey]

NS thinks Salmond is "yesterday's dick", ...

Does he? He used that term in the manner of a hypothetical:

'It is perfectly possible to think that Salmond is yesterday's dick, and that the Scottish govt and civil service have been at the very least completely incompetent.'

Just because it is possible to think that someone can think both of those things doesn't mean he, personally, thinks either of them. We need to wait for NS to say that he actually thinks that Salmond is yesterday's dick.

which then disproves your rather childish assertion that NS is a "Salmond fan-boy".

I made that accusation in reply 573, based on my interpretations of his comments on this thread up to that point. I may, of course, have missed it, but can you show me where NS has said he thinks Salmond is yesterday's dick in his comments up to that point please.