|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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 be
>> > > answered "no". Do the taxi drivers on the moon accept tips? No.
>> >
>> > According to my philosophy 101 teacher at university, you can validly
>> > 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; just
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 be
> easily refuted, disproven or tested. Thus, the lies get support from the
> 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.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:15:28 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
>What's about white coffee?
Yes I take my white coffee without milk or sugar.
>BTW have you also tried green tea with gold? :)
I should be so rich :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:59:54 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>You know if you keep acting like that they'll rename the road and you'll
>be back to plain old Sir Saint Stephen :-P
Should that not be Saint Sir Stephen? But with my attitude to the "knobility"
(the K is silent) I think that I would refuse the honour. I'll keep the Saint
bit, I think it suits me. What do you think? Does my ego look big in this?
>Heh Saint Stephen Street Apartments - St.St.St.Apts.
>
LOL
http://stephenstreetcondos.com/index.htm
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 08:57:39 -0000, "Phil Cook"
<phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
>
>Oh *D*uppy I read *G*uppy, well actually I didn't I just thought it would
>be funny.
Keep trying :)
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Ok, then tell me how most of what gets called "spin" in politics isn't
> exactly what is described.
"Spin" in politics is actually lying. But politicians call it "spin"
because lying doesn't sound good.
It's like the difference between bribes and grease.
"Spin" is what the trial lawyer does. Defense calls it "the alleged
footprint", and prosecution calls it "the incriminating glove", but
they're both the same thing. Prosecution asks their own expert witness
how many years of experience he has (many, but no formal education), and
asks the defense's experts whether they have college degrees in the
subject (none, but lots of experience).
The one currently amusing me is how many people use the expression "UFO"
to mean "alien spaceship". "See? The government admits there are UFOs!"
> 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.
Hard to say. That would imply someone *does* know the truth.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
And lo on Thu, 31 Jan 2008 05:36:50 -0000, Patrick Elliott
<sel### [at] rraznet> did spake, saying:
> In article <op.t5opm6cgc3xi7v@news.povray.org>,
> phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk says...
>
> 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
It's like statistics, spin is presenting the data in a different way.
Try this
"It's often said that you can't lie; is this true?"
"Yes"
Now the interpreted vebose version
"Is it true that it's often said you can't lie?"
"Yes it is true that it's often said I can't lie, however the statement
that everyone makes is incorrect and I can and do lie all the time"
Yeah weaselly with a capital W.
> 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.
I do love that presumption though, again try this
"The floor of the main hall in Christchurch is paved with marble"
Every form of lie detection device you may have will tell you I'm lying,
at this point you pump me full of pentathol and attach electrodes to
tender areas of my body in order to discover what the main hall floor is
paved with. Except I don't know, I don't even know if Christcurch has a
main hall. I'm bullshitting, but the fact that the devices tell you I'm
lying implies I know the truth, which I don't.
> 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.
Apart from the "make thing up" bit yep. If you have to make something up
to fill the gaps then you can be accused of lying; much more satisfactory
to be misinterpreted instead.
--
Phil Cook
--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Phil Cook" <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> >> > At least I found the reason: Your showel was too hard.
> >> > No, no, don't flail again. :)
> >>
> >> That's okay John's flown off with and I don't have another Shovel +2
> >> Against Reason as blessed by L Ron Hubbard lying around. I could just
> >> wrap
> >> some wires around the handle of a different shovel say it detects
> >> "Thetan
> >> Radiation" and try that if you like?
> >
> > Hihi, won't work, because I have an atheistic shield +20. :P
>
> Heh it was an Attack of opportunity which negates shields, you belong to
> Hubbard now :-P
No. :)
You forgot my avatar. A nice little pixie with defensive ability of
antiscientology of +3. :)
I needed time, but prepared a spell of destroying weapongs 75%. Your shovel
turns to dust.
And I've won. Yeah. :P
> > And at last it leads to the question: Is there free will in hell? ;)
>
> Perhaps in the same way there is in prison.
Or a hell like Fawlty Towers. How would the corresponding heaven look like? :)
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:15:28 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> >
> >What's about white coffee?
>
> Yes I take my white coffee without milk or sugar.
>
> >BTW have you also tried green tea with gold? :)
>
> I should be so rich :)
>
> Regards
> Stephen
Me too. :)
But when you are invited to try such a tea. Would you try it?
Regards
bluetree
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 08:00:03 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysATaolDOTcom@> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 03:15:28 EST, "bluetree" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >What's about white coffee?
>>
>> Yes I take my white coffee without milk or sugar.
>>
>> >BTW have you also tried green tea with gold? :)
>>
>> I should be so rich :)
>>
>> Regards
>> Stephen
>
>Me too. :)
>But when you are invited to try such a tea. Would you try it?
Yes, I would be honoured.
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|