🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct1.220542.14650@resonex.com> zenon@resonex.com (Zenon  
Fortuna) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.165220.25206@cube.handheld.com> jmd@cube.handheld.com  
(Jim De Arras) writes:
> >
> >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. :)

Perhaps in general, but not on truth and lies.  I don't believe so, anyway! :-)

> I wanted to point out, that the person *can be far from the truth* only  
because
> he/she does not know the truth.
> 
Agreed, but in this case, the fellow 'admitted' that NeXT was not exactly  
telling the whole truth.  That they were closer to the truth than most was the  
rationalization used, but a clear admission that NeXT knew the truth, but chose  
to be only 'closer than most' to it.

> "lying" implies "cheating", isn't it (or I am *lying* now) ?
>
"Lying" implies willing misrepresentation of the truth so that the other party  
is purposely led to believe something that is not the truth.  Even if each fact  
used is true, the whole can easily be a lie.  Look at the presidential ads  
running, now!  Both (all three?) SOBs are lying.  What's left to vote for?

> 	-Z.

Perhaps this debate belongs in some other forum by now? ;-)


Jim