In article <op.t5opm6cgc3xi7v@news.povray.org>, 
phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
> And lo on Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:48:05 -0000, Patrick Elliott  
> <sel### [at] rraznet> did spake, saying:
> 
> > In article <web.479b10cbe1d0580ad77696980@news.povray.org>,
> > nam### [at] gmailcom says...
> >> Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> >> > Darren New wrote:
> >> > > Then the answer would be "no", not "yes". :-) If the place doesn't
> >> > > exist, then asking whether there's something at that place would b
e
> >> > > answered "no". Do the taxi drivers on the moon accept tips? No.
> >> >
> >> > According to my philosophy 101 teacher at university, you can validl
y
> >> > say anything about nonexistent things.  All unicorns are chartreuse,
  
> >> no
> >> > harbl which has a frobotz is virpo, that kind of thing.  So the taxi
> >> > drivers on the moon both do and do not accept tips.
> >>
> >> indeed.  Wu/Mu is the correct answer to such questions.
> >>
> >
> > Actually, this reminds me of a blog entry I read today which talked
> > about the difference between lies, bullshit and spin.
> >
> > Basically:
> >
> > Lies - Require you know the truth, so you can try to convince people
> > that something else is true instead. This is easily refuted, since all
> > someone has to do it prove that the truth is something else.
> 
> No, lying requires you to think you know the truth then claim something 
 
> else. If I 'knew' the Moon was made of cheese then *I'd* be lying if I 
 
> told you was it was just a lump of rock.
> 
> > Bullshit - Making things up, out of thin air, with no basis in truth at
> > all, other than needed to convince someone that it *might* be somehow
> > connected to the real world. This is damn hard to refute, since how do
> > you prove that there *is* truth, as related to something that doesn't
> > exist? How do you even prove that it didn't happen, didn't exist, etc.?
> 
> Again not quite. Bullshit is indeed fabrication from thin air, but like 
 
> lying doesn't necessarily preclude the person hitting upon the truth; jus
t  
> that they wouldn't know it.
> 
> > Spin - Something between the two above. Its purpose is to lie where
> > needed to imply that black is white, up is down, right is left, good is
> > bad, etc., but with a large dribble of bullshit added in, which can't b
e
> > easily refuted, disproven or tested. Thus, the lies get support from th
e
> > stuff you can't examine, while the stuff you can't examine is made more
> > probable by the suggestion that "if it exists/happened/etc.", the lies
> > must be true. As a result, the nuts that believe the bullshit will
> > believe both, and the people that fall for the lies are more easily led
> > into also accepting the bullshit.
> 
> Like Darren I'd suggest spin is more the rearrangement of facts to point 
 
> to the conclusion you want it to. No lies and no bullshit.
> 
> Robin Hood wasn't an outlaw he was fighting for the common man against a 
 
> tyrannical system.
> Robin Hood was an outlaw who robbed people of their hard-earned goods and
  
> killed men acting in their sworn duty to protect the country.
> 
> It would be amusing if they'd had both the Sun and the Daily Mail around 
 
> in those days.
> 
Ok, then tell me how most of what gets called "spin" in politics isn't 
exactly what is described. A mix of people making up stuff to explain 
what they don't comprehend, while lying about the stuff they know, or 
think they know, is true. lol

Seriously though, you have some good points. The presumption though is 
that the liar *knows* the truth and opts to say something else, not that 
they only *think* they know. While that may not always be true, from the 
perspective of those presenting the "facts" to refute the lie, its still 
presumed to be a lie, even if they got it right *by* lying. Same with 
BS. Yes, its possible to make something up and "accidentally" stumble on 
the truth, but its rather improbable.

As for spin.. Lets put it this way instead: "To spin something you have 
to know not only how you *want* people to perceive things, but also how 
your opponent *does* perceive them. To get the right effect, you have to 
distort his view, make things up to fill in gaps you can't explain 
yourself, and, if your goal is to win, regardless of the accuracy of 
your position, lie about what is really going on." Its not really 
"spin" unless you are at least two out of three of those.

-- 
void main () {

    if version = "Vista" {
      call slow_by_half();
      call DRM_everything();
    }
    call functional_code();
  }
  else
    call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message