To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.
you did not take steps to reasonably ascertain that LS was ignorant of wiki. you did not ask him pointed questions about wiki to tease out his level of knowledge, neither did you ask him upfront.
I will recognize your posts as demonstrative of concession until you decide to respond to the content of my posts. If you thought that you could refute my argument, then you would merely do so.
I’ll indulge you once today.
No, I do not. Plus, it was a huge waste of your time because I also don’t care.
You believe or you know? If you know, present facts. If you believe, then go ahead. I don’t have the time or inclination to disabuse you of false notions.
I wasn’t complaining. The commercial model of Wikipedia is unsustainable. They cannot claim fair use, if they use the content for commercial purposes (running ads). Thus, not having original content, makes it very tricky legally for them to monetize. Based upon how much trouble they had fund raising last year, I don’t think they will be able to sustain their growth as the economy continues to unravel.
I work online. I look at these ventures not by some perceived social good, but whether or not the model is successful aka profitable. Wikipedia by its very design, is not ever going to be profitable, and since it is a sort of public commons, that means it will not last long. It was strictly a boom economy phenomenon, or as Austrians might say, a malinvestment.
On the contrary, I don’t respond to your posts because
You’re welcome to adorn yourself in merit badges and tell the empty auditorium how you bested me if it makes you feel like a big man, but the absence of proof, is not a proof of absence.
A lie is merely an intentional falsehood. If you attempt to stretch that definition to any thing else, then it loses its unique meaning and becomes a worthless term.
Not to derail this too far, but just as an irrelevant aside. I think, in a forum where I’ve heard tale of ban-happy mods, this should be applauded. It seems much more reasonable to just ignore as oppose to ban.
Sorry, something that has been on my mind for a while.
with your comment, you intend to make it seem true that LS was ignorant of Wikipedia, whether it was in fact true or not
i did not coin the definitions, they are from Wikipedia…
that one has not reasonably ascertained to be true with the intention that it be taken for the truth by oneself or someone else.
moving away from wikipedia , we have dictionary.reference.com, sense 3 and part of 1 >
| 1. | a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. |
|---|
| 2. | something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one. |
|---|
| 3. | an inaccurate or false statement. |
|---|
| 4. | the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers. |
|---|
this is pedantic, but its similar to how you were harassing LS so fairs fair.
I wrote that in 3 minutes. If that is, from your perspective, a “huge waste of [my] time”, then . . . that is interesting.
I also believe that the sun exists. Do you not “have the time or inclination to disabuse [me] of” such false notions as the positive existence of the sun?
Ah, I see. I thought that you meant the former. In the case of the latter, you may be right.
I agree Wilmot. When I. Ryan accuses liberty student of not being able to take criticism, he should keep this point in mind.
Also, I. Ryan, what do you do in real life when somebody evidently doesn’t wish to continue a conversation with you? And don’t exchanges like the one you’re insisting upon bear a rapidly diminishing marginal utility (unless the utility is associated with merely pissing your opponent off)?
I will “keep [that] point in mind”. However, I do not understand why you decided to say that.
That depends on what the real life situation is.
Yes.
Indeed.
I always defined a “lie” as a “deliberate falsehood”. And, I believe that is how most people define it. If you some one claims that the state is legitimate and should perform certain functions and then you tell them that they are “lying”, then they would almost certainly become angry. However, if you merely said that their statement is “false”, then they would almost certainly remain calm and merely ask you to substantiate your claim.
well, if nothing else you have learnt that lie has other established meanings within the culture of english speakers so you have more strings to your bow.
I will heed your wisdom and therefore I will, in my next friendly real-life debate, tell my opponent that he is “lying” and that his position is a “lie”. I am sure that he will realize that I merely believe his argument is incorrect and therefore I am sure that the conversation will remain civil.
I thank you.
i wasnt giving advice as to how you should argue. merely informing you of facts.
regardless, you’re welcome whether your thanks was sincere or not.
(well, really only if it was sincere)
((which it wasnt)).
You should work on a friendly online conversation as well.