The future of the UK EU relationship

[PDQ Mobile]

These are 2 men who have had many personal "in my office" meetings.
They know each others views and aims really quite well.

Not well enough for Thiel to know what Epstein was talking about in the exchange we've been discussing

The written word is notoriously difficult to interpret sometimes ( see this forum!).
So Theil asks which aspect of the "good" things they had already discussed in "the office" , and Epstein clarifies.
That is my reading of it.

[853]

These are 2 men who have had many personal "in my office" meetings.
They know each others views and aims really quite well.

Not well enough for Thiel to know what Epstein was talking about in the exchange we've been discussing

The written word is notoriously difficult to interpret sometimes ( see this forum!).
So Theil asks which aspect of the "good" things they had already discussed in "the office" , and Epstein clarifies.
That is my reading of it.

Think that's pretty wild imagination, considering Thiel only said "Of what?" and Epstein's incoherent reply. Certainly no evidence to support it

[PDQ Mobile]

Not well enough for Thiel to know what Epstein was talking about in the exchange we've been discussing

The written word is notoriously difficult to interpret sometimes ( see this forum!).
So Theil asks which aspect of the "good" things they had already discussed in "the office" , and Epstein clarifies.
That is my reading of it.

Think that's pretty wild imagination, considering Thiel only said "Of what?" and Epstein's incoherent reply. Certainly no evidence to support it

I would suggest more evidence than your take on it actually.

Nothing "incoherent" about Epstein's reply, surely?

[853]

Nothing "incoherent" about Epstein's reply, surely?

Are you being sarcastic? Serious question, as if we look at Epstein's reply (below) with all its errors it is far, far worse than the average post on this forum

return to tribalism . counter to globalization. amazing new alliances. you and I both agreed zero interest rates
were too high, and as i said in your office. finding things on their way to collapse , was much easier than
finding the next bargain

In view of what you correctly stated yesterday (below) I'd say it was very incoherent

The written word is notoriously difficult to interpret sometimes ( see this forum!).

[PDQ Mobile]

Nothing "incoherent" about Epstein's reply, surely?

Are you being sarcastic? Serious question, as if we look at Epstein's reply (below) with all its errors it is far, far worse than the average post on this forum

return to tribalism . counter to globalization. amazing new alliances. you and I both agreed zero interest rates
were too high, and as i said in your office. finding things on their way to collapse , was much easier than
finding the next bargain

In view of what you correctly stated yesterday (below) I'd say it was very incoherent

The written word is notoriously difficult to interpret sometimes ( see this forum!).

So you see how difficult it is for some to interpret what I considered to be obvious!
Pudding and proof I guess.

Epstein's REPLY was; "Brexit, just the beginning"!
Not difficult I would say.
But I am starting to think you always omit what you find unpalatable.


The first bit of the email does of course rely on a previous conversation, held " in the office".
So in that sense interpretation by anyone not party to the office conversation will not have the full picture.

However put the two together and a clearer picture emerges.

[slowster]

Epstein's REPLY was; "Brexit, just the beginning"!

The sequence of the emails was not from top to bottom. See the time and date stamps.

[PDQ Mobile]

Epstein's REPLY was; "Brexit, just the beginning"!

The sequence of the emails was not from top to bottom. See the the time and date stamps.

I hadn't realised that.
I read top to bottom.

Do you think it changes the interpretation.
I would say not.
Because it puts Brexit firmly and centrally into the answer's context.

But maybe you think differently of it because of that?

[853]

I hadn't realised that.
I read top to bottom.

I honestly can't believe I've read that ....

[PDQ Mobile]

I hadn't realised that.
I read top to bottom.

I honestly can't believe I've read that ....

And yet it is quite clear that was the case throughout our interaction.
And you never realised either!

Doesn't change my opinion that Epstein celebrated Brexit in any way.

(I always read from top down, old habits die hard!
The new digital age often escapes me!)

[853]

I hadn't realised that.
I read top to bottom.

I honestly can't believe I've read that ....

And yet it is quite clear that was the case throughout our interaction.
And you never realised either!

Doesn't change my opinion that Epstein celebrated Brexit in any way.

(I always read from top down, old habits die hard!
The new digital age often escapes me!)

It is beyond belief for you to expect me to know that you hadn't read the email exchange between Epstein and Thiel properly.

If you had of read the email exchange between Epstein and Thiel properly you would have seen the date and time stamps; like everyone else commenting on it.

If you had of read the previous exchanges between members discussing what was said you would have seen and (hopefully) understood the progression, and the complete lack of evidence of celebration.

[roubaixtuesday]

the complete lack of evidence of celebration.

An opinion completely opposed to any rational interpretation.

[PDQ Mobile]

I honestly can't believe I've read that ....

And yet it is quite clear that was the case throughout our interaction.
And you never realised either!

Doesn't change my opinion that Epstein celebrated Brexit in any way.

(I always read from top down, old habits die hard!
The new digital age often escapes me!)

It is beyond belief for you to expect me to know that you hadn't read the email exchange between Epstein and Thiel properly.

If you had of read the email exchange between Epstein and Thiel properly you would have seen the date and time stamps; like everyone else commenting on it.

If you had of read the previous exchanges between members discussing what was said you would have seen and (hopefully) understood the progression, and the complete lack of evidence of celebration.

I am sorry I didnt read the time stamps.
I do very little email.

However I don't think the order makes any significant difference in this instance.

Thiel's reply is too short ( though we know he was party to a longer office discussion where amongst other things "zero interest rates were agreed to be to high") to have any influence on gleaned meaning.
((Do zero interest rates mean that these types are speculatory predators on those simple folk who have just a little money saved?))
And that things "on their way to collapse" is easier.
Brexit was a partial collapse of the EU.
And was promoted by those with an interest in that.
............

Tell me please what difference in interpretation is possible from the 2 variants?

"return to tribalism . counter to globalization. amazing new alliances. you and I both agreed zero interest rates
were too high, and as i said in your office. finding things on their way to collapse , was much easier than
finding the next bargain
Brexit just the beginning. "

0r:-
"Brexit just the beginning
return to tribalism . counter to globalization. amazing new alliances. you and I both agreed zero interest rates
were too high, and as i said in your office. finding things on their way to collapse , was much easier than
finding the next bargain"
........
There has been very little discussion by "members of what was said", or the context in which it was said.
Indeed I would say I did the lions share of attempting to do that.

[853]

the complete lack of evidence of celebration.

An opinion completely opposed to any rational interpretation.

It's not an opinion it's a fact; there is no evidence of celebration in the Epstein/Thiel email exchange you posted. Seems like you haven't read the email exchange properly either

[roubaixtuesday]

the complete lack of evidence of celebration.

An opinion completely opposed to any rational interpretation.

It's not an opinion it's a fact; there is no evidence of celebration in the Epstein/Thiel email exchange you posted. Seems like you haven't read the email exchange properly either

It's not a fact, it's just an opinion. Which, in my opinion, and that of others I've referenced, is obviously wrong.

[853]

It's not an opinion it's a fact; there is no evidence of celebration in the Epstein/Thiel email exchange you posted. Seems like you haven't read the email exchange properly either

It's not a fact, it's just an opinion. Which, in my opinion, and that of others I've referenced, is obviously wrong.

Well if you don't believe it's a fact, perhaps you will be good enough to show us all where the celebration is in the Epstein/Thiel email exchange that you posted (below)