Re: OT - There must be a word for this
- From: nigel <useweb@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 14:44:08 +0000
I think I understand the point you're trying to make. To take a recent footie example, Player A asks Player B, "Did I say 'you're a negro'?".
Player A actually uttered the words "you're a negro" so it's not false attribution in the legal sense, but taken out of context it appears completely different to the speaker's intention ie contextomy.
Yes, that's right.
Also stuff like Einsteins famous 'God does not play dice..' being used by the loony fringe of Christendom to claim him as one of their own.
Then my assertion, "Yes She does, and She's not very good at it," makes me a prime candidate for The Inquisition :)
Of course not, rocket scientists usually seem incredibly stupid outside their sphere of expertise.
Most rocket scientists aren't even scientists, they're engineers :)
I'm thinking of Howard Wolowitz here....
I had to look that one up. Wikipedia calls him an aerospace engineer :)
Politicians thrive because they come across as decent human beings,
No, they thrive because they have learned to get on within the limited community of the party machine. Most people vote for a party not a person. Where people vote due to a personality it is vastly more likely that they will vote based on the personality as projected through the media than any personal, one to one, conversation.
Tory BLiar got elected on unkept promises and boyish good looks. I didn't speak with him personally but others who did said he came across as straight and honest, just like his media persona. Hopefully they know differently now.
He got elected to parliament because the party machine gave him the very safe seat of Sedgefied where Labour have been in control since 1935.
He was elected to the leadership of the labour party by the party machine. He was only in that leadership race because a small elite in the party saw him as a winner, an acceptable figurehead - it's only at this stage that his image outside of the Labour movers and shakers comes into play.
The Labour party were elected mainly because the Conservatives under Major had become almost totally unelectable, and Blair became PM by default.
Do you think many people see MP's as decent human being since the expenses scandal. Most people I know were quite cynical even before that, but maybe I'm just mixing with the wrong people.
No, I think the majority are as disillusioned as ever by the quality of our politicians, hence the low turnouts for elections.
I see that MPs are slowly clawing back the gravy train elements that they temporarily sacrificed. If we had decent MPs I think it would be worth paying them a lot more than they currently receive, but we don't - we have the dregs of Eton and the like who are too thick to get a real job.
My tabloid du jour (goodbye HL) claims that they're going to build a replacement royal yacht at a cost of £80 million entirely from donations. Given the track record of government projects (eg the olympics), that will quickly rise to £320 million, meaning 32 new unelected members of the House of Lords :(
then we find out the truth when they actually get into power. Actions speak louder than words.
Words *are* actions.
I don't understand what you mean by that. If someone says, "I will do X", that isn't the same as actually doing X.
No it isn't, it is it's own action with it's own consequences. Words can be violence and they can be healing or many other things. I see them as actions because they have very real effects both mentally and physically.
On a minor level a lewd comment can cause the blush response.
Continued disparaging remarks can ruin a life.
A word of forgiveness or tolerance can raise a person up.
I understand up to a point, but I still feel the actions of politicians are more important than their words.
When talking to someone face to face the words spoken are generally a minority of the communication going on. Do you consider yourself easily fooled in face to face conversations?
Yes, I claim no greater prowess at detecting liars and scamsters in face-to-face conversations than most other people.
Play poker, there are tells.
I keep meaning to learn, but I'm put off by the ten year theory.
It supposedly takes something like 10 years to go from scratch to world class at anything, apart from the 'soft' sports chosen by our Olympic Chiefs as likely to yield the most medals with the minimum cost and effort.
Given the popularity of poker, it's not a soft 'sport'.
However I'm quite good at spotting liars and scamsters on teh interweb
"teh interweb"?? - leetspeak wasn't cool even when it was cool.
I was trying to lighten the tone - this is quite a deep discussion.
- Prev by Date: Re: Hugs
- Next by Date: Re: Hugs
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - There must be a word for this
- Next by thread: Re: OT - There must be a word for this