On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 19:28:01 +0930, Greg Mayman wrote: > 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> All very fine points, and excellently illustrated. Sam Heywood -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: http://browser.arachne.cz/
