Context is all, York. The loan that the Trust were seemingly forced to take out was indeed unfortunate and deserves (and indeed has had much) discussion.
It is however a completely irrelevant distraction technique in a discussion about whether 11 (thanks croider) intelligent men would conceivably allow themselves to be wilfully denied critical information on the most important decision they have and will ever face in this role and yet each and every one of them decide to tolerate that deception. Or whether that claim is at best grossly exaggerated and at worst complete fabrication completely undermining that posters credibility (such as it is).
As always for each individual to judge for himself.
I've been told that the valuable information missing from the A.Harman bid undervalued it by about £500k.
However, its omission appears to have been a genuine mistake rather than some Machiavellian plot by anyone.
Seems even harder to understand why he decided to withdraw from the bid process when the omission became clear. His withdrawal has left us with less options and that isn't necessarily a good thing.
I also think that the episode has made it more difficult for the American bid to be heard without some people becoming biased against it simply because it's the only outside investment choice.
I hope the trust members can make the right decision if we're even given something to actually vote on.
@Twizz said:
I also think that the episode has made it more difficult for the American bid to be heard without some people becoming biased against it simply because it's the only outside investment choice.
It could also result in people becoming biased for the American bid simply because it's the only outside investment choice. Judging by the balance of comments on the Facebook group, that is very much the majority case with that group's regular posters. There seem to be a surprising (IMO) number of posters on the Facebook group who are insisting that we should accept the American bid and sell the majority forthwith, despite the fact that they know nothing about what the terms of said bid are.
@Uncle_T that makes it sound like the Gasroom might not be the power broker!
I've heard a number of people (not GR or FB users) say they will be voting for...so I'm not sure the myth that they won;t make the 75% they need can be relied upon. As I've said before a lot of people just want to watch football and the details of who is running it is of no interest until the money runs out! Heated debate amongst the Liberal Gasroom Elite might turn out to be just that...
There seem to be a surprising (IMO) number of posters on the Facebook group who are insisting that we should accept the American bid and sell the majority forthwith, despite the fact that they know nothing about what the terms of said bid are.
@Malone said: @Twizz , it sounds like a bit of a massive let off if the guy who could have been running things is making a 500k error in his calculations!
@Malone said: @Twizz , it sounds like a bit of a massive let off if the guy who could have been running things is making a 500k error in his calculations!
who said it was his error?
whoever is to blame for the mistake (the power group/the EU/Russian Trolls)...as @Twizz continued - ' Seems even harder to understand why he decided to withdraw from the bid process when the omission became clear.'
Me too @drcongo but thought @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots had established for the Gasroom that he had not and would not get a fair hearing even before he had his Travel Tavern meeting. If any of the power group are on here, surely they would have realised that not letting him have a go would lose them the Gasroom...or do we think they don't think they need the Gasroom to win the 75%? So having been out of the running and then getting his foot back in the door...and knowing he had support for his bid from many not happy about the US bid, I still find it strange that Andy would just give up the ghost at what seems to be an admin error. Or that Trev and his mates would risk sabotaging giving him a hearing and ending up with the situation we have now...
I'd have walked as soon as it became clear that there was no way to get a fair hearing. This was presumably that moment for AH.
I would have thought the onus was on you to provide evidence for that assertion rather than me to provide evidence against it.
However as you ask so nicely
1) The process was delayed (and then delayed again) to give Mr Harman time to present his very belated formal bid professionally
2) If Mr Cecil is to be believed, Mr Harman was still tweaking his bid (and providing back up information) up to the very last minute of the decision day, yet these very late (and therefore frankly rather unprofessional submissions) were included in the discussion.
3) All of our elected representatives (all eleven of them) must surely have understood that this decision was an extremely important decision for them to make yet not one of them has suggested before or since in word or action that they were unhappy that the process they were ultimately asked to determine was not a fair one.
I've shown you mine, may I ask you to show me yours. What evidence do you have that the consideration of the Harman late bid was not fair?
It's so much easier to snipe at others views when you rarely give your own for comparison @drcongo. Tell us what you think rather than just attack those who give an opinion, however weird it might appear
Not sure that's entirely fair, Mr Middle. We all have more important things in our lives than an internet forums. I am sure Dr Congo will be along in due course with some evidence for his view that Mr Harman didn't get a fair hearing. Eventually of course, we may well have to conclude that there is no evidence whatsoever for this view but let's not be hasty. let's give him a little time yet.
You need to look up the word evidence Dev. That was your funniest post yet. Very cute that you tried though.
@Right_in_the_Middle I honestly have no idea as there’s no evidence for either side of the coin. Which is actually what I’ve already said. And funnily enough, I did repeatedly give an opinion - that Dev’s little straw man arguments are preposterous confirmation bias.
Is “confirmation bias” a new concept? I’ve seen it a couple of times lately. Have a feeling I’ll not understand any explanation but, if nothing’s forthcoming from erudite Gasroomers, I’ll try Google.
@micra it’s the tendency to believe any “evidence” that supports what you already believe and discard any that doesn’t support it. We all do it to one degree or another. There’s a decent list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Comments
Context is all, York. The loan that the Trust were seemingly forced to take out was indeed unfortunate and deserves (and indeed has had much) discussion.
It is however a completely irrelevant distraction technique in a discussion about whether 11 (thanks croider) intelligent men would conceivably allow themselves to be wilfully denied critical information on the most important decision they have and will ever face in this role and yet each and every one of them decide to tolerate that deception. Or whether that claim is at best grossly exaggerated and at worst complete fabrication completely undermining that posters credibility (such as it is).
As always for each individual to judge for himself.
I've been told that the valuable information missing from the A.Harman bid undervalued it by about £500k.
However, its omission appears to have been a genuine mistake rather than some Machiavellian plot by anyone.
Seems even harder to understand why he decided to withdraw from the bid process when the omission became clear. His withdrawal has left us with less options and that isn't necessarily a good thing.
I also think that the episode has made it more difficult for the American bid to be heard without some people becoming biased against it simply because it's the only outside investment choice.
I hope the trust members can make the right decision if we're even given something to actually vote on.
Stop posting the same tedious shit over and over again then.
It could also result in people becoming biased for the American bid simply because it's the only outside investment choice. Judging by the balance of comments on the Facebook group, that is very much the majority case with that group's regular posters. There seem to be a surprising (IMO) number of posters on the Facebook group who are insisting that we should accept the American bid and sell the majority forthwith, despite the fact that they know nothing about what the terms of said bid are.
@Uncle_T that makes it sound like the Gasroom might not be the power broker!
I've heard a number of people (not GR or FB users) say they will be voting for...so I'm not sure the myth that they won;t make the 75% they need can be relied upon. As I've said before a lot of people just want to watch football and the details of who is running it is of no interest until the money runs out! Heated debate amongst the Liberal Gasroom Elite might turn out to be just that...
As a lifelong member of the Liberal elite I am fully accustomed to never being listened to and fully expect that to remain the case
Are @Right_in_the_Middle and @DevC on the facebook group?
These people are unlikely to be trust members, which improves the chances of hitting the 75% as they are likely not to vote.
I’m fairly confident that at least 75% of votes cast will be yes, but that it will fail to reach the 75% threshold of people eligible to vote.
What are you actually asking @drcongo?
@Twizz , it sounds like a bit of a massive let off if the guy who could have been running things is making a 500k error in his calculations!
@Chris you could be right...
who said it was his error?
whoever is to blame for the mistake (the power group/the EU/Russian Trolls)...as @Twizz continued - ' Seems even harder to understand why he decided to withdraw from the bid process when the omission became clear.'
I'd have walked as soon as it became clear that there was no way to get a fair hearing. This was presumably that moment for AH.
What evidence is there to suggest that was the case Dr Congo?
Surely the evidence is clear that the process was delayed and delayed again specifically to ensure that Mr Harman did get a fair hearing.
Me too @drcongo but thought @marlowchair and @NiceCarrots had established for the Gasroom that he had not and would not get a fair hearing even before he had his Travel Tavern meeting. If any of the power group are on here, surely they would have realised that not letting him have a go would lose them the Gasroom...or do we think they don't think they need the Gasroom to win the 75%? So having been out of the running and then getting his foot back in the door...and knowing he had support for his bid from many not happy about the US bid, I still find it strange that Andy would just give up the ghost at what seems to be an admin error. Or that Trev and his mates would risk sabotaging giving him a hearing and ending up with the situation we have now...
And what's your evidence that he got one?
In the absence of evidence for either, I find it amusing that your confirmation bias kicks in again. You might want to get that looked at.
Well given that you made the statement>
@drcongo said:
I would have thought the onus was on you to provide evidence for that assertion rather than me to provide evidence against it.
However as you ask so nicely
1) The process was delayed (and then delayed again) to give Mr Harman time to present his very belated formal bid professionally
2) If Mr Cecil is to be believed, Mr Harman was still tweaking his bid (and providing back up information) up to the very last minute of the decision day, yet these very late (and therefore frankly rather unprofessional submissions) were included in the discussion.
3) All of our elected representatives (all eleven of them) must surely have understood that this decision was an extremely important decision for them to make yet not one of them has suggested before or since in word or action that they were unhappy that the process they were ultimately asked to determine was not a fair one.
I've shown you mine, may I ask you to show me yours. What evidence do you have that the consideration of the Harman late bid was not fair?
In light of the overt innuendo in that last paragraph @DevC, are we to assume that you have been observing your nether regions in the mirror?
@drcongo - You really do enjoy banging your head against a brick wall!
It's so much easier to snipe at others views when you rarely give your own for comparison @drcongo. Tell us what you think rather than just attack those who give an opinion, however weird it might appear
Not sure that's entirely fair, Mr Middle. We all have more important things in our lives than an internet forums. I am sure Dr Congo will be along in due course with some evidence for his view that Mr Harman didn't get a fair hearing. Eventually of course, we may well have to conclude that there is no evidence whatsoever for this view but let's not be hasty. let's give him a little time yet.
Oh dear.
You need to look up the word evidence Dev. That was your funniest post yet. Very cute that you tried though.
@Right_in_the_Middle I honestly have no idea as there’s no evidence for either side of the coin. Which is actually what I’ve already said. And funnily enough, I did repeatedly give an opinion - that Dev’s little straw man arguments are preposterous confirmation bias.
Is “confirmation bias” a new concept? I’ve seen it a couple of times lately. Have a feeling I’ll not understand any explanation but, if nothing’s forthcoming from erudite Gasroomers, I’ll try Google.
Ask yourself why people of faith see only truth for their particular version of belief.
@micra it’s the tendency to believe any “evidence” that supports what you already believe and discard any that doesn’t support it. We all do it to one degree or another. There’s a decent list of cognitive biases on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
Should be noted that some of those are considerably more “recognised” (ie peer reviewed) than others - if you want some bedtime reading I highly recommend the work of Kahneman and Tversky - https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-two-friends-who-changed-how-we-think-about-how-we-think
I do however note Dr Congo that you have presented not a shred of justification or evidence for your statement that Harman didn’t get a fair hearing.
And when pushed you resorted to the well worn path of abuse and distraction. You could still of course explain why you believe as you do.