Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, gi…
Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, given known positions. It gives one a column.
I think AI gives one approach, at least a one-time stunt, and, who knows, it might catch on as a regular punishment. Take your questions, Wells', etc; and have somebody like Boosenkool write up answers that PP might reasonably give, from what we know. Then post an interview to YouTube with a panel of journalists firing questions, all answered by "Pierre Poil-AI-evre", voice and face faked up with AI. Needless to say, preceded by explanation of the "one question, and we'll chop it up" problem, that it's the only way to get an answer at all.
Make a few answers at least irritating to the principal; a few "I have no response to that" where we really don't know, perhaps - and see if it goads him to reaction. The stunt itself may get on TV and have you tut-tutted by a TV panel that, We Do Not Do That. It would raise the question of what the hell you DO do, then - stand on a windy street being insulted?
Interesting ideas. We've got to do something to protect ourselves from these right-wingers who use psychology against not just us but their own supporters.
Well answered; you're taking the Anthony Fauci/Bonnie Henry approach of just staying on your own game, same message, same demeanor.
I just think that backfired with Trump: elected. The same seems likely with PP. I think Wells has used the approach of listing the questions he'd like to ask, and discussing what answers are even possible, given known positions. It gives one a column.
I think AI gives one approach, at least a one-time stunt, and, who knows, it might catch on as a regular punishment. Take your questions, Wells', etc; and have somebody like Boosenkool write up answers that PP might reasonably give, from what we know. Then post an interview to YouTube with a panel of journalists firing questions, all answered by "Pierre Poil-AI-evre", voice and face faked up with AI. Needless to say, preceded by explanation of the "one question, and we'll chop it up" problem, that it's the only way to get an answer at all.
Make a few answers at least irritating to the principal; a few "I have no response to that" where we really don't know, perhaps - and see if it goads him to reaction. The stunt itself may get on TV and have you tut-tutted by a TV panel that, We Do Not Do That. It would raise the question of what the hell you DO do, then - stand on a windy street being insulted?
Interesting ideas. We've got to do something to protect ourselves from these right-wingers who use psychology against not just us but their own supporters.