When she finishes the sentence and looks down it appears, just briefly, as if she's snarling.No, the Mandela effect is people remembering things differently to what actually happened - I.e a false memory - that can either be something happening completely differently or just being a change to what actually got said or what something was called.
There are countless examples of that happening, and in each case the thing happened, just differently - Mandela was in jail but didn't die, Kirk said many ways to get beamed up but never said beam me up, Scotty, many people say Snow White says mirror mirror on the wall but she says magic mirror etc
Ziggys exact quote was
"I distinctly remember this because that answer, together with the look on her face, was very menacing and filled with hatred. Not seen that before or since. So I thought I would look it up and check the YouTube of the exchange. It’s not there…but the most sinister thing is it doesn’t appear in Hansard according to an historian who went looking too, although a lot of other people seem to remember the exact words said."
That's multiple people remembering something that she didn't say. Yes, the exchange happened between May and corbyn, but look at that quote above; especially this bit;
"with the look on her face, was very menacing and filled with hatred. Not seen that before or since."
Ziggy, like the others, is sure she said that but also sure about this look of menacing hatred. You've just posted the video and sure enough at 7 & a half minutes in, she says something different (but similar, same with all the other Mandela examples), but not only that I don't think she has menace or hatred in her face, it's just standard PMQ stuff, and despite being a full old hag of a witch, she is even holding back a smile as she said it
It's completely different to how it has been remembered, unless you're the most die hard labour supporter I suppose. It's certainly an interpretation, anyway and you could say the same about most PMQ. But either way, multiple people have remembered this being said differently
So I caught the “Mandela Effect”…..Nelson you utter b*****d.
Strange, but there you go.
Funny in a way. My work involves listening very closely and intently for quite long periods of time, in 1-2 hour stretches. No it’s not boring, far from it.
Surely the OP be happy with such a choice? It would help to engage more people in the democratic process.Yes 100% because that is still a vote
It's not an interjection, it's in the video above unless you're saying it's something else. Honestly not seeing any snarling on that clip, however. Just seems like a standard PMQ exchange where they tell each other how rubbish they are.Just checked with Hansard.
“ Interjections are reported only if the member speaking replies to them or remarks on them during the course of his or her speech”
Was it an interjection I wonder. Doesn’t matter anyway.
These were the comments on his blog. So we've got 4 people on a historians blog, and a bloke on fmttm adamant that they saw it, not that they saw it reported but that they remember it happening, so safe to say if 4 people replied to something as niche as a historians Wordpress blog, and someone from fmttm had the same experience, more will have the same recollection.When she finishes the sentence and looks down it appears, just briefly, as if she's snarling.
It was then reported on as such, which is why people remember that aspect.
Multiple people have remembered that something that did happen, happened. They've just forgotten the exact detail.
at no point is there a mass-misremembering. There's one bloke searching for something he'd heard about and then declaring that it doesn't exist. Other people then jump onboard to say they all remember it happening - which it did.
It isn't different to how it was remembered. It's different to how it was reported.
I know it’s ‘late in the day’ in the day to add comment on this, but I remember May saying to Corbyn “We will never let you win” in PMQs. I’m not convinced by the above claim that this is about Fake News. Many remember seeing this. If it doesn’t appear in Hansard, the whole subject becomres more sinister, not less so.
Even later in the day, I recall it too. Given how the Zionist lobby and the Labour right have ‘destroyed’ Jeremy Corbyn. She was speaking the truth, frightening.
I believe it was “we will never let you win”, I have a very strong memory of her saying it, but there seems no record of it and I have searched a number of times for the evidence. I don’t see the fact that there is no evidence of it as meaning it didn’t happen, but something that perhaps reflects the sinister nature of the slip, evidence of it has been erased.
I watched her say it.
Ask Mick if he'll join us on the anti-Brexit march will you?
I've no interest in politics and don't vote myself personally but looking at the general concensus on here it seems almost entirely left wing based - which seems the opposite of the views of most of the UK population who've generally been more centre right over the years, hence the conservative party being in power more often than not
What utter b***ks. That's like Woody saying the league table was wrong.The UK as a whole generally votes towards the left. The system we operate isn’t representative of that.
I couldn’t believe it eitherWhat utter b***ks. That's like Woody saying the league table was wrong.
What utter b***ks. That's like Woody saying the league table was wrong.
People like to riff on this woody quote, but everyone forgets that he was right, the table was lying, because by the end of the season we were not relegatedWhat utter b***ks. That's like Woody saying the league table was wrong.
Although I suppose the % turnout records the apathy or otherwise of the voters. Which can be a useful stat as well.Not voting is not not abstaining though as no such vote is recorded
It’s not participating in a democratic process
If you really want to abstain spoil your ballot as that way at least your vote or non vote is recorded.
Personally I’d make voting compulsory but include the option to record a non vote.
But the four in the comments are all responding to the prompt within the blog. Two explicitly state that they remember it as a different phrase. It isn't the same as people remembering an event that never happened (e.g. Mandela dying in prison).It's not an interjection, it's in the video above unless you're saying it's something else. Honestly not seeing any snarling on that clip, however. Just seems like a standard PMQ exchange where they tell each other how rubbish they are.
These were the comments on his blog. So we've got 4 people on a historians blog, and a bloke on fmttm adamant that they saw it, not that they saw it reported but that they remember it happening, so safe to say if 4 people replied to something as niche as a historians Wordpress blog, and someone from fmttm had the same experience, more will have the same recollection.
It is but it doesn’t show the abstaining from the apathetic.Although I suppose the % turnout records the apathy or otherwise of the voters. Which can be a useful stat as well.
But the four in the comments are all responding to the prompt within the blog.
Abstaining in a GE just means not voting at all doesn't it?It is but it doesn’t show the abstaining from the apathetic.
I find it fascinating. The fact you used the form of words that obviously originated either from the blog or from the source used by the blog makes it less likely (to me) that this is some form of Mandela Effect and far more likely that people remembered the incident but not the detail. The false form of words then became dominant as people searched for it and it was spread around the web.Not me, Scrote. I only saw the blog for the first time today when I was searching for verification of what she said online. Good fun tho’