tenebrisnox

That's probably the best way of dealing with it.

That's one of the issues, isn't it? I recently found someone who only responded to comments about Margaret Thatcher, challenging negative comments about her. This person's history went back years and ALL of the comments (thousands!) only challenged negative ones about her. It could have been a bot, of course, but if real, it was a pretty weird way of engaging online. That goes beyond contrarianism, it's some sort of "distributed sealioning" maybe?

It's a hard one, though. I've found myself challenging someone who then avoids answering and making other similarly unsupported points... eventually you learn that it's a waste of time. Equally, you don't want to leave their comments out there unchallenged.

How can you tell good faith from bad faith?

For instance, can you tell if this question is asked in good faith or not? These things seem very hard know.

Seems to me that's the point of it: to stop people asking questions in good faith and then persisting on challenging lies and disinformation.

You'll forgive me but that's not evidence of a "crank" (unless "crank" simply refers to anyone who doesn't share your views). You made the assertion that Murray's "been many many times more discredited than proven correct". As I said, I'm happy to have my opinion of Murray changed but you've not provided any evidence other than a Wikipedia page which doesn't seem to show he was "discredited" in the way you think it does. He has some opinions which many people don't share (Salisbury and Starmer come to mind) but, generally, he appears to me to have stood up for some righteous causes (Assange, Palestine, the influence of oligarchs on Brtitish politicians).

Can you give evidence for your "crank" assertion and that he's been discredited? I've followed Murray over the last 5 or so years and I've not noticed misinformation. He's pretty much on the other side of things than mainstream political opinion but usually what he asserts tends to be the case. But happy to corrected and informed by evidence.

Keep searching Youtube. It's been put up and taken down a couple if times already. It'll be put back up again.

Why settle for coherent when you can make it complicated and unintelligible? Private Eye is saying that the show's been put on hiatus for at least 3 years - so plenty of time to reverse the polarity on the complexity inhibitors.

Or - worse - Italian Brainrot creatures!

Agree. I've found the spinning TARDIS flying through space silly and cartoonish. Why would it do that when it could materialise closer?

Yes. Regard it all a bit like the Valeyard: ghostly future echoes of what could have been. The more appealing stuff can always be reintroduced afresh. If you don't like Eight - I could be convinced with Seven. I'd be happy with a pre-Rose Nine as well.

(I'm increasingly an advocate of (re)introducing the Faction, if Miles would allow it, who have been there all the time messing with time, causing temporal collapse - from which emerges new timelines which simultaneously embrace and reject everything before. And behind that a greater War in Heaven which makes the Time War look like a scuffle in a playground.)