Re: Today

Shazam! No reason, it's just magic. So gekko
<gekko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:

>Josh Hill <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> was born with a gift of laughter,
>and a sense that the world was mad. Or, at least, the misc.writing
>part of it:
>
>
>> What Pies said: it's not a lie, even in spirit, if you don't know
>> the quote is out of context.
>
>Is spreading someone else's lie the same as lying?

Not if one doesn't know it is a lie.

> Should not one,
>before spreading misleading information, validate one's sources?

Not if one does not have good cause to doubt one's source. We're not
newspaper journalists vouching for the veracity of what we're having
printed.

> Is
>it not valid to tar the spreader of disinformation with the same
>brush as the originator of disinformation?
>

No, absolutely not. It's perfectly possible to be misinformed and
spread misinformation in good faith.

>Is that not what you and your cronies are doing with respect to
>President Bush and the WMD stories?

Absolutely not. Preznit Bush lied, demonstrably so.

In fact, *you* are spreading misinformation about Preznit Bush
willingly. You are a liar.

If you were not, you would not find it possible to say that Preznit
Bush did not lie before the Iraq War.

You might excuse him for it. That's for what passes for your
conscience. But to say he did not do it is a lie.

>> My original source did not mention
>> the context.
>
>Given that you habitually quote people out of context, habitually
>make false statements regarding people and their intentions, and
>habitually attempt to paint people you dislike in a negative light
>by selectively quoting them or selectively presenting speculative
>tales written with negative spin, it's reasonable to assume you
>willfully chose to select a misleading quote and deliberately ignore
>the true context.

No, I don't agree. I don't agree that he does "habitually" do any of
those things. Sometimes is about all you could muster.

>If you say you did not know the context at all, then shame on you
>for being a glib ignoramus, eager to snatch at any negative thing at
>all for your own purposes and spread the "lie" on behalf of others.

But it is not spreading a lie. She said it.


Dr Zen
Excruciatingly embarrasing signature contents go here.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Today
    ... > the quote is out of context. ... Is spreading someone else's lie the same as lying? ... Given that you habitually quote people out of context, ...
    (misc.writing)
  • Re: eleaticus absurdities
    ... not Einstein. ... >> don't understand the context in which the equations were written. ... > The last part is pure lie. ... > simultaneous equations. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: eleaticus absurdities
    ... not Einstein. ... >> don't understand the context in which the equations were written. ... > The last part is pure lie. ... > simultaneous equations. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: eleaticus absurdities
    ... not Einstein. ... >> don't understand the context in which the equations were written. ... > The last part is pure lie. ... > simultaneous equations. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Are Jojos exact quotes lies?
    ... >> By altering a context you are making a truth out to be a lie. ... Without the second amendment ...
    (rec.org.mensa)