Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8896 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-21-2019 7:42 AM
43 online now:
Percy (Admin), RAZD (2 members, 41 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,523 Year: 3,560/19,786 Month: 555/1,087 Week: 145/212 Day: 12/49 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Author Topic:   Misconceptions of E=MC^2
pelican
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 241 of 243 (455149)
02-10-2008 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by RAZD
02-10-2008 12:58 PM


Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
Getting On Topic
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please focus discussion on the topic and leave moderator issues to the moderators. Concerns should be posted to Report Problem Posts Here: No. 1.

Didn't you read this post Razd, or do you have the misconception that this rule only applies to me?

razd writes:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Nothing to trust - stop feeding the troll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who are concerned with truth:
This:
this post accuses me of "intentional deceit."

... is a false statement. The intentional deceit was admitted by "paula rose" aka dameeva aka Heinrik in this post and again in Message 235. Thus my stating it is just stating an already admitted fact, and it cannot be inflammatory to the person who admitted the intentional deceit. Being offended by the truth doesn't make the truth less valid. We've seen a whole thread apparently dedicated to the precept that anyone can take offense from the words of others, and that you can choose or pretend to be offended as you wish. The thread in effect invites people to take offense or pretend to be offended ... rather humorous.

In Message 229 I asked "paula rose" aka dameeva aka Heinrik to clarify any misconception I had in regard to this admission of intentional deceit and whether it was in fact lying:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's my misconception: that intentionally deceiving others is a definition of lying, and I have to wonder how you square this with the {idea\concept\process} of honestly presenting your opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I repeated this request in Message 232 and added a definition of "lie" for clarification:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is why you felt you needed two userIDs to begin with:
Message 229
Here's my misconception: that intentionally deceiving others is a definition of lying, and I have to wonder how you square this with the {idea\concept\process} of honestly presenting your opinion.

In other words I want to be able to take your word at face value, as I generally do all posters, however I now have self-admitted evidence of intentional deceit on your part, so am I wrong to mistrust every single thing you say?

How can I tell if you are being honest?

for reference:

lie² –noun1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
(American Heritage Dictionary, 2008)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So he\she\it has been given two opportunities to defend or explain any misconception between this admitted behavior and being dishonest.

If he\she\it chooses to pretend to take offense at this then all I have to say is: you reap what you sow eh?

As far as topic is concerned this thread was started by "paula rose"/dameeva/Heinrik to talk about misconceptions, with e=mc² as a talking point (one that has been covered enough for anyone really interested to do further research on their own if necessary). If this is off-topic then so is discussion of Bell's Theorum ... (which did have a topic proposal at one time ... involving misconceptions too IIRC ... )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by RAZD, posted 02-10-2008 12:58 PM RAZD has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 242 of 243 (455150)
02-10-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Admin
02-10-2008 5:02 AM


Re: Getting On Topic
Percy, I had considered that option and decided against it for obvious reasons. However, I do see that all this bull shit is off topic and as I'm actually done with this topic, I don't even know why I'm here. Apologies.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Admin, posted 02-10-2008 5:02 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3061 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 243 of 243 (455364)
02-12-2008 5:29 AM
Reply to: Message 230 by johnfolton
02-09-2008 2:33 PM


---------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited by paula rose, : No reason given.

Edited by pelican, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by johnfolton, posted 02-09-2008 2:33 PM johnfolton has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
1213141516
17
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019