Ah, Kondor:
Are you seriously suggesting the link I posted was not utterly clear that this was a local council?
Did you not see the link which said: "
- Gwynedd Council agrees Israel trade embargo"
" GWYNEDD COUNCIL " ?
You are were not blessed with a lot of smarts, were you Kondor?
I am not suggesting that at all - you may wish to revisit the sequence to find supporting narrative.
What I
AM suggesting is that your announcement in the first post in that series, which declares...
"A trade embargo has been imposed from Britain on all future trade with Israel, due to the disproportionate violence this summer by Israel on Gaza..."
...is largely disingenuous in its construction, but, being a fan of the Palestinians, and BDS, it is in your agenda's best interests to pitch it that way.
It would have been
far more honest to construct that sentence as something similar to...
"A trade embargo has been imposed by a regional (township, county) -level governing council in the UK (Wales), on all future trade with Israel..."
For every person that clicks on a supporting link, there are probably another 4 or 5 (call it 4, just for grins) that bypass the links under most circumstances, just because nobody has the time to read all of everyone else's supporting links, unless there's a conflict, and the reader is sufficiently interested to pursue the thing.
For those four-out-of-five drive-by readers, the initial labeling is everything.
Few people (
at least, in the US) even know what 'Gwynedd'
is, or have even
heard of it before, and even fewer
care - that's background noise for your average drive-by reader.
Chances are good that that only one reader out of five would have even bothered to click on the link, and that most of those might have caught-on that this trade ban was only local-yokel stuff rather than a nationwide initiative, as your deficient initial label would lead most folks to believe, without digging further.
Four times out of five, folks will simply take the word of the poster, that the link says what it does, and only dig deeper if (1) they find the poster's summary to lack credibility, or (2) they strenuously disagree with it, or (3) they need more detail, attributable to simple curiosity, or in order to contribute something substantive to the conversation...
The way your original incident-label was worded, four out of five drive-by readers would most likely assume that the UK-at-large - as a whole - had imposed such a trade ban.
Such a false assumption was worth counterpointing, but it made more sense for such clarification to come from the original poster in the series, rather than someone who objected to the false assumption that those four-out-of-five would have otherwise conjured while noting it and zooming past it.
You (
after a little nudge) did a
fine job of 'outing' the nature of the trade-ban for the local-yokel pissant incident that it actually was.
Rather like a circus flea - damned-near invisible, and virtually meaningless, after all.
I'm sure that those four-out-of-five drive-by readers are glad that
you eventually remedied your own earlier lack of clarity and that
you remedied or negated any suspicion or possible accusation of disingenuous labeling.
Well done.
As to 'smarts', well, you may be right - I can be dumb as a box of rocks sometimes - the wife has told me so on more than one occasion.
But, in the narrow context of our little series here, I am content.
Next slide, please.
