How was I mislead, mhaze?

<<Irrespective of how diligent you were in your Google research, the fact remains that you were misled by that research in regards to Bush and the attacks on his mental capacity to lead.>>

I first stated that I did not recall any attacks on Bush’s mental fitness (note that I didn’t say that there were none):

“Bush Jr. was despised by many of his opponents, yet I don’t recall anyone questioning his mental health.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8085#250955)

Further to that, it appears (as revealed by my Google searches) that the questioning of Bush’s mental fitness were nowhere near as frequent or widespread as they are concerning Trump - as you tried to make out.

<<Your failure to adequately note that, will mean that in the future you'll be similarly misled ...>>

So, my failure to notice something (which I was not even looking for) puts me at risk of being misled? Not necessarily. My openness to the possibility, that there were still some criticisms of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness, of which I was not aware (as evident in my wording), demonstrates that I was not misled about anything.

Claiming that your opponents have been misled seems to be a common tactic of yours.

<<The fact is Google leans left and will always give you the results it thinks you should have.>>

Think about what it is that you’re suggesting here: you’re suggesting that Google has adjusted their algorithms to reduce the number of results returned for searches attempting to gauge the extent to which the questioning of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness occurred while he was in office.

I seriously doubt that. That's a pretty specific claim you're making there.

Wouldn’t it be more left-leaning to return a disproportionate number of results showing that Bush Jr.’s mental fitness was questionable?

Time to get that tinfoil hat out.

<<You might want to mollify you naivety by thinking its a conspiracy theory …>>

No, I think I've demonstrated the unlikeliness of such algorithms and the extent to which your thinking is paranoid.

Continued...

...Continued

<<Oh I do seem to recall you've fallen for a few "beautiful things".>>

Once again, you assume I fell for something. No, I made my own judgement calls there, too, and ones I am not ashamed of for reasons already specified.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=19087#340061

Again, I will never feel embarrassed for giving people too much credit, even if you think I should. You think sexual assault and bragging about committing it isn't such a big deal? Fine. I disagree.

Shame: that's another tactic of yours, isn't it? According to you, your opponents should be ashamed of something they said in the past; have been “led up the garden path”; or both. Such is the modus operandi of the partisan political hack, I suppose.

What gets up the nose of the regressives the most is that Trump statements often show up the hypocrisy of the left. Quite entertaining.

A slight correction, mhaze.

<<Irrespective of how diligent you were in your Google research, the fact remains that you were misled by that research in regards to Bush and the attacks on his mental capacity to lead.>>

It appears that you were questioning the accuracy with which my Google search results reflected the extent to which Bush Jr.’s ability to lead was questioned during his presidency.

That being the case, all I can really do here is again point to the unlikelihood that Google’s alleged left-leaning algorithms are responsible here:

“Think about what it is that you’re suggesting here: you’re suggesting that Google has adjusted their algorithms to reduce the number of results returned for searches attempting to gauge the extent to which the questioning of Bush Jr.’s mental fitness occurred while he was in office.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8085#251364)

Again, there's some pretty damn specific forethought on Google's behalf there (tailored specifically to make life more difficult for you here on OLO, no less). That’s even more unlikely than the suggestion from phanto once that I spoke fondly of my Christian days on OLO for years so that I could link back to those posts in the off chance that someone like him would supposedly discover that I was actually bitter about my days as a Christian and needed to cover the fact up:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7844#242441

You lot will try anything on.

Churchill (and probably others) said "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it."

Generally the history is of the larger world-scope variety. The encouragement is learn from the appeasement movement or the Thucydides dilemma, or the errors of Versailles. But it can equally be applied to the individual scale. If you fail to learn from your past mistakes, then you'll make them again.

If you, even having noted an error, seek to minimise or rationalise it away as an aberration, then you've failed to learn and a repeat is close to a certainty

Maze,

The Spaniard (and later American) George Santayana.