On Sun, 06 Jul 2003 05:58:31 -0500, Samuel W. Heywood wrote: > Note that I had used the word within quotations so as to indicate > that the "facts" might not have really been proven as such.
But to many people the use of "quotes" is only another method of "emphasizing" a word or a statement, if you see what I mean <G> I knew what you meant. But it might have been better if you had phrased it as "so-called facts" or something like that. Then there wouldn't have been any confusion. I agree that too many lies have been told about this whole business. But that is politicing (politicking?) at it's highest level. > If by definition all "FACTS" are statements that have been PROVEN to be > TRUE, then why do we always hear so many politicians and news analysts > using the phrase "true facts"? Is there any such thing as a "false > fact"? Of course there is, in politics <G> OTOH I don't want to get mixed up in a flamewar, so I'll bow out of this "discussion"* at this stage. * as in "so-called discussion" <G> Greg -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/
