🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct1.165220.25206@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>In article <1992Sep28.151059.8225@resonex.com> zenon@resonex.com (Zenon  
>Fortuna) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep28.142202.28576@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com  
>(Jim De Arras) writes:
>> >In article <5181@rosie.NeXT.COM> Brian_Pinkerton@next.com (Brian Pinkerton)  
>> >writes:
>> >> In article <1992Sep24.140404.22842@cube.handheld.com>  
>> >> jmd@cube.handheld.com (Jim De Arras) writes:
>> >> > I was not able to attend the dev conf.  Does this mean we must have
>> >> > and believe 'inside' info, from one slide, over the public
>> >> > announcements?  Given that, how can we beleive anything NeXT says?
>> >> > It's all "marketing hype" in the end!
>> >> 
>> >> If I were you, I'd believe an engineer's inside info 10 times more often  
>> >> than I believed any marketing info.  This goes for any company, not just  
>> >> NeXT.  The nice thing about NeXT is that the marketing line is a lot  
>> >> closer to the truth than at other large computer companies.
>> >> 
>> >Well, thank you for admitting your marketing dept lies.
>> >standard practice does not forgive it.
>> 
>> Sorry to protest, but from the statement "...is a lot closer to the truth..."
>> you cannot conclude that the person is lying.	:)
>> 
>> 	-Z.
>
>Per my old-fashioned upbringing, in the (early) fifties, there is truth and  
>!truth.  !Truth == lie.  The statement "...is a lot closer to the truth..."  
>implies the position not the truth, and hence a lie.  I know that is out of  
>sync with the nineties, where truth is more a matter of perception than an  
>absolute, but I'm too old to change.
>
>Jim

Well, in your terminology "you are lying", because I am sure you are not too
old to change. :)
I wanted to point out, that the person *can be far from the truth* only because
he/she does not know the truth.
"lying" implies "cheating", isn't it (or I am *lying* now) ?

	-Z.