Feedback time! Big improvements on the opening, had me hooked initially. Unfortunately, lost my thrall part way through, and the length was difficult to digest. I'll try to keep the feedback short.
1) "scamdemic" - if you intend to reach a wider audience, avoid polarising or dividing terms. Yes, this may be what you truly believe, and I suspect your current readers also agree with this, but if your goal is to reach beyond the choir, you have to adopt the ol' fashioned "BBC neutrality".
There will be folks who still think the pandemic is real, or that calling it a scam might be 'going too far'. This would be the point they'd switch off. I personally avoid the term because it is a coined term with no dictionary definition, and looks unprofessional.
Instead of using polarising terms, point to evidence. So, don't say 'scamdemic', say 'fraudulent PCR tests' (link to evidence) or 'fraudulent death statistics' (link to evidence). There's a reason why even propaganda outlets like the BBC stick to feigned impartiality and doesn't overtly scream 'kill the antivaxxers!'.
2) "Yeah, I can see where this is going." - avoid using personal opinion, if possible (sometimes it isn't). Refer to the prior actions of an agency/person to infer what they are likely going to do.
3) The use of ChatGPT, as a resource, reference, or argument is instantly self-discrediting [also why I haven't liked or reposted], and like Wikipedia, should never be used, unless your goal is to either to use it to give yourself places to manually research (at which point you only refer to the manual research directly) or as a punching bag.
- Most audience members will know ChatGPT is bias with ideologues
- Majority of people know AI outputs are unreliable, and will not trust it
- It will appear lazy or half-assed, damaging credibility
- Trolls will accuse you of not understanding the material, or of using AI to 'fabricate' information
- There's a high risk if you just copy-paste the output, you will miss something (it erodes your own self-understanding by outsourcing to an easy and convenient method; like how people who eat McDonalds often don't know how to cook proper food)
ChatGPT is ultimately just trained on publicly available information, I.E. an overglorified search engine. It'd be like writing 'here's Google's take on the matter'. No-one cares. They're here for *your* take of the matter. If they wanted an AI's input, they would just ask it directly. Be you, for you.
4) If you type the dash key ('-') twice you can get the extended dash. It only works in Substack article posts, not comments. It's good for distinguishing formatting.
5) I'm hypocritical here, but shorten length.
Most readers will be commuters on trains, buses, etc looking for a quick read inbetween journeys. Some might be on lunchbreaks, and you will be competing with other content and Substacks for their time.
Most people have a limit on total amount of attention they can give. Call it willpower: it drains over time.
- Measure two (Word document) pages worth of content. Three, max. Images without text don't count towards length. Images with text, do.
- If you can't shorten it, it likely suggests you've "gone off topic" down a vast, extended rabbit hole, and it is in dire need of information pruning.
- Whatever you prune off, you can write in another, separate article.
- Learn information density tactics. Re-write paragraphs to shorten them, until you reach a point where you lose meaning if you delete another word.
- Don't quote large blocks of text, highlight specific sections.
- If you must quote large blocks, put it as an image and use highlight on specific words (repeat the specific words as text so audio readers can work). If you're highlighting everything in an image (red flag for sprawl), paraphrase the text instead into a much shorter format and link to the reference instead.
- Break up long text into digestible bulletpoints or paragraphs.
I know you've got the capacity to become an amazing writer!
lol much appreciated by i think my time is just about up. i think i've got the full picture now, just need to slot in the likes of the 'global ethic' through the world congress on religions/laudato si, and fold ie the CFR/RIIA into the fabian/socialist timeline, because they played a role for sure. once there, i'm out for sure.
i ran my hypothesis through chatgpt which didn't materially object.
These evil bastard tyrants won't stop until the public basically shoot them dead. Which means for anybody reporting on their crimes... there is a perpetual workload.
Take breaks if you feel burned out, but don't abandon your post, soldier!
its all downstream from. all downstream. if this construct collapses, it'll take rather a while to rebuild. it took 100 years to construct, after all.
they're trying to enrage you, making you waste your time elsewhere. marxists always do that. the distractions will keep coming, you can count on that one.
but while you're distracted, they take the next step towards the end goal.
Love how you take this all apart and shed light on the doings of these nefarious organizations - and with links to your sources. I'm very appreciative of the clarity with which you write, and how you write (feedback from The Undetdog notwithstanding).
Thanks for this, and to Dr. Mike Yeadon for pointing out your Substack to us.
Feedback time! Big improvements on the opening, had me hooked initially. Unfortunately, lost my thrall part way through, and the length was difficult to digest. I'll try to keep the feedback short.
1) "scamdemic" - if you intend to reach a wider audience, avoid polarising or dividing terms. Yes, this may be what you truly believe, and I suspect your current readers also agree with this, but if your goal is to reach beyond the choir, you have to adopt the ol' fashioned "BBC neutrality".
There will be folks who still think the pandemic is real, or that calling it a scam might be 'going too far'. This would be the point they'd switch off. I personally avoid the term because it is a coined term with no dictionary definition, and looks unprofessional.
Instead of using polarising terms, point to evidence. So, don't say 'scamdemic', say 'fraudulent PCR tests' (link to evidence) or 'fraudulent death statistics' (link to evidence). There's a reason why even propaganda outlets like the BBC stick to feigned impartiality and doesn't overtly scream 'kill the antivaxxers!'.
2) "Yeah, I can see where this is going." - avoid using personal opinion, if possible (sometimes it isn't). Refer to the prior actions of an agency/person to infer what they are likely going to do.
So, for example, we know the WHO lied about the transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 (https://www.who.int/china/news/detail/09-01-2020-who-statement-regarding-cluster-of-pneumonia-cases-in-wuhan-china) and then tried to cover it up (https://web.archive.org/web/20220219161948/https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/). So the WHO are habitual liars, dishonest, untrustworthy, not deserving of power (see my poorly written older article on their monkeypox-related power grab: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/monkeypox-madness); you don't need to vaguely suggest where it is going - you can prove it!
If you use opinion, you run risks (disclaimer: this is not legal advice, consult with a legal professional):
- Risks of defamation for making unevidenced claims (against individuals)
- Making it easier for trolls to discredit what you say as 'unevidenced'
- Inviting confusion in the audience who can and will misinterpret insinuations
- Inviting accusations from the audience of being simply 'anti-whoever' (which is dispelled by supplying evidence)
- Running a reasonable risk of being partially wrong, or arriving at premature conclusions due to missed evidence
Forcing yourself to evidence every major claim at every step is a good way to prevent errors in reporting in general (I avoided mischaracterising gain-of-function laws, which I misunderstood: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/i/81190600/no-one-truly-knows-the-definition-of-gain-of-function - in my defence, nobody else got it right either).
3) The use of ChatGPT, as a resource, reference, or argument is instantly self-discrediting [also why I haven't liked or reposted], and like Wikipedia, should never be used, unless your goal is to either to use it to give yourself places to manually research (at which point you only refer to the manual research directly) or as a punching bag.
- Most audience members will know ChatGPT is bias with ideologues
- Majority of people know AI outputs are unreliable, and will not trust it
- It will appear lazy or half-assed, damaging credibility
- Trolls will accuse you of not understanding the material, or of using AI to 'fabricate' information
- There's a high risk if you just copy-paste the output, you will miss something (it erodes your own self-understanding by outsourcing to an easy and convenient method; like how people who eat McDonalds often don't know how to cook proper food)
ChatGPT is ultimately just trained on publicly available information, I.E. an overglorified search engine. It'd be like writing 'here's Google's take on the matter'. No-one cares. They're here for *your* take of the matter. If they wanted an AI's input, they would just ask it directly. Be you, for you.
4) If you type the dash key ('-') twice you can get the extended dash. It only works in Substack article posts, not comments. It's good for distinguishing formatting.
5) I'm hypocritical here, but shorten length.
Most readers will be commuters on trains, buses, etc looking for a quick read inbetween journeys. Some might be on lunchbreaks, and you will be competing with other content and Substacks for their time.
Most people have a limit on total amount of attention they can give. Call it willpower: it drains over time.
- Measure two (Word document) pages worth of content. Three, max. Images without text don't count towards length. Images with text, do.
- If you can't shorten it, it likely suggests you've "gone off topic" down a vast, extended rabbit hole, and it is in dire need of information pruning.
- Whatever you prune off, you can write in another, separate article.
- Learn information density tactics. Re-write paragraphs to shorten them, until you reach a point where you lose meaning if you delete another word.
- Don't quote large blocks of text, highlight specific sections.
- If you must quote large blocks, put it as an image and use highlight on specific words (repeat the specific words as text so audio readers can work). If you're highlighting everything in an image (red flag for sprawl), paraphrase the text instead into a much shorter format and link to the reference instead.
- Break up long text into digestible bulletpoints or paragraphs.
I know you've got the capacity to become an amazing writer!
lol much appreciated by i think my time is just about up. i think i've got the full picture now, just need to slot in the likes of the 'global ethic' through the world congress on religions/laudato si, and fold ie the CFR/RIIA into the fabian/socialist timeline, because they played a role for sure. once there, i'm out for sure.
i ran my hypothesis through chatgpt which didn't materially object.
https://x.com/_Escapekey_/status/1793238297772253575
Evil is, as far as I can tell, infinite. There will be always more bad guys to squash.
As much as you'll want to wrap up and finish things, they will keep coming back, and doing more and more disgusting things.
Germany are basically legalising child porn images.
https://www.thepublica.com/germany-downgrades-illegality-of-child-porn-from-felony-to-misdemeanor/
These evil bastard tyrants won't stop until the public basically shoot them dead. Which means for anybody reporting on their crimes... there is a perpetual workload.
Take breaks if you feel burned out, but don't abandon your post, soldier!
its all downstream from. all downstream. if this construct collapses, it'll take rather a while to rebuild. it took 100 years to construct, after all.
they're trying to enrage you, making you waste your time elsewhere. marxists always do that. the distractions will keep coming, you can count on that one.
but while you're distracted, they take the next step towards the end goal.
Love how you take this all apart and shed light on the doings of these nefarious organizations - and with links to your sources. I'm very appreciative of the clarity with which you write, and how you write (feedback from The Undetdog notwithstanding).
Thanks for this, and to Dr. Mike Yeadon for pointing out your Substack to us.