Jesus Christ, Neil! I take it it is your 'wonderful humor' that makes you think of teaching business English to get away from the deception! And as for your old company dreams, that film has been made already. I went to see Skyfall last night, good film, just in case you've missed it for anti-romantic reasons.
2012/11/12 archytas <[email protected]>: > I was an addict of BBC World Service for re-runs of Hancock's Half > Hour, Navy Lark and others when abroad. Letter From America was very > soothing. In more recent years I watched a lot of Aussie crime > drama and spent time with Americans in the Middle East for 'company'. > The car bit in my history included building a kit car, a Morgan 4-4 > and various wrecks. The VW does look good and will hopefully be fun - > but I was honestly taken by the blue motion efficiency stuff and the > very comfy front seats. I do business lease these days rather than > buy and the real pleasure is not having to crawl under cars. Sue > really chose it and does most of the driving. I tend to take trains > if I can, but expect to have to travel more by car for the next few > years. The thing is about £2K more over the three year lease than I > meant to pay and it was hard to drag her from the wheel after the test > drive. I was planning on a couple of months off in a French Gites > with the money and some time on my own - or more correctly in old > company to see if I really want to do something different. > > I'm watching a film from Thailand at the moment. I had considered > teaching business English there and a couple of years in a different > culture away from our deceptions. The word 'romance' usually kills > any chance of me watching a film - this one is gentle and rather > lovely, but about to get serious in message. It's called 'Wonderful > Town'. > > On 11 Nov, 10:29, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes- the BBC scandal plus BenGhazzi and Petraeus and no-show testimony >> of latter and Clinton but at least there is a new definition for being >> embedded with the troops, isn't there? >> >> On Nov 9, 7:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Never really imagine you as a mud wrestler rigs. How does one wrestle >> > mud by the way? Sounds a bit like politics. I bought a new car too - >> > or at least ordered one for the new year. A VW Scirocco - 2 litre >> > diesel with blue motion technology that gets 64 mpg and does 0 -60 in >> > 9.3 seconds - if one believed the salesman the energy it recycles from >> > braking would power a small town! Nice looking beast one can easily >> > imagine with a saddle. >> >> > Not worth diluting beer over Romney, but I have noticed Obama is only >> > the drag version. There have been no calls for the Carnielli paper >> > from this group. It's mostly uninteresting, other than in that a >> > professional philosopher has noticed life slides on bull-grease. >> > What's really in my mind on this relates to rigsy saying that Goethe >> > was perhaps the last person to have a grasp of 'everything' - in fact, >> > even the great man was largely outside the kick off of modern >> > science. The modern problem is disinformation and education based in >> > old hat. >> >> > Our most educated broadcast news channel here is C4. Last night they >> > did a bit of a review on Britain's hapless inquiry systems. A Tory MP >> > popped up to describe them as >> > 1. a means to kick problems into the long grass >> > 2. a means to cover-up in public pretending to do something with the >> > intent of changing nothing >> > 3. genuine and largely Victorian (forgotten) means to bring about >> > radical change by addressing real problems. >> >> > We have a paedophile scandal here around Jimmy Saville - a pathetic >> > and now dead TV personality. Politicians are supposedly involved and >> > I'm connected in that my brother and father (school teachers) asked me >> > for advice when I was a cop - on Saville and some git associated with >> > him who ran a school disco. I got the git (who has just been re- >> > arrested) on unrelated criminal matters. We were sure he was abusing >> > young girls - but I can't tell you how hard it was to do anything when >> > evidence comes from people who can easily be further abused and >> > discredited by scumbag lawyers. My advice to my brother was that the >> > police and wider CJS was hapless - in another enquiry I was reduced to >> > pinning a drunk driving charge on a perpetrator in exasperation over >> > the real case. >> >> > The other side of this stuff is false complaints and mad people who >> > claim to be experts and victims and are neither. In recent years I've >> > worked with an academic with a distinct tinge of madness (personally >> > delightful) who gets lots of the child abuse stuff right and who was >> > able to get bunches of cops to really look at street situations and >> > see the abuse. The woman concerned would be easy to attack on the >> > basis of her personal life, drinks a lot, shags fairly >> > indiscriminately - and has the score right. I've just been able to >> > interview some of the cops in terms of before and after - all are >> > concerned at just how much their eyes have been opened. >> >> > My views on deception in argument are based in control fraud. There >> > are similarities between the rings that form to commit fraud and abuse >> > rings. I suspect the 'mechanisms' may be the base of party >> > politics. >> >> > On 9 Nov, 08:29, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > What you are saying is the crimes against humanity and murders that >> > > Bush ordered is okay? >> >> > > You need to buy a new car and put a saddle in it to stay out of the mud. >> > > Allan >> >> > > On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 12:12 AM, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > > Better to sit in the saddle then wrestle in the mud... >> >> > > > On Nov 8, 1:23 pm, Allan H <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> I hope the republicans get off their destructive high horse. Romney is >> > > >> right both sides need to work for the benefit of the whole nation, >> > > >> not just >> > > >> a select few. >> > > >> Allan >> >> > > >> Matrix ** th3 beginning light >> > > >> On Nov 8, 2012 5:21 PM, "archytas" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >> > I was struck that Obama's acceptance speech was prime BA - we could >> > > >> > hardly disagree a word yet have no reason to believe any of it is >> > > >> > happening, will happen and is anything other than an appeal to those >> > > >> > of us with liberal biology - yet we hope it is true and don't think >> > > >> > of >> > > >> > the real problems under its sway. Romney was a model democrat in >> > > >> > defeat, accepting the will of the people and praying for his >> > > >> > opponent. More BA as the House will already be beavering away to >> > > >> > make >> > > >> > Obama a lame duck fit to serve with a rigsy sauce. It's all, as >> > > >> > Goffman had it, 'face work'. >> > > >> > People my age were all taught Julius Caesar was a great leader who >> > > >> > invaded Britain in 53 AD. In fact, he had been seen off the year >> > > >> > before and couldn't get his lads to board the boats. The barbarians >> > > >> > and Philistines of history turn out to have been much more >> > > >> > civilised, >> > > >> > artistic and all round good guys compared with the Greek and Roman >> > > >> > slave-based economies who left us their songs of victory. >> >> > > >> > On 7 Nov, 13:36, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> > > >> > > One probably needs a critical eye to spot why this paper is itself >> > > >> > > bullshit rigsy - but you seem to have got there from the summary >> > > >> > > above. Judging from the political adverts from the US elections >> > > >> > > we >> > > >> > > sampled here last night BS has won. Polish friends in the Warsaw >> > > >> > > Pact >> > > >> > > days, skilled in Soviet hogwash, were well aware the stuff was >> > > >> > > just >> > > >> > > for public consumption and that the World Bank guff I was >> > > >> > > supposed to >> > > >> > > disseminate just our form of it. They were quick to see the >> > > >> > > apparatchiks were becoming the entrepreneurchicks following the >> > > >> > > collapse of the wall. >> > > >> > > In Britain one of our MPs is going on an Aussie TV show of the >> > > >> > > kind >> > > >> > > where they dump you in the jungle with custard and hornets in your >> > > >> > > hair. There is much protest concerning her triviality. My own >> > > >> > > view >> > > >> > > is we should develop a control experiment from this and find out >> > > >> > > how >> > > >> > > many we can dispose of in this manner before we notice an adverse >> > > >> > > effect. As an added torture we could perhaps throw this >> > > >> > > philosopher >> > > >> > > in the mix! >> >> > > >> > > On 7 Nov, 11:19, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > I suspect the ghost of Diogenes the Cynic is still looking for >> > > >> > > > an >> > > >> > > > honest man. >> >> > > >> > > > On Nov 5, 10:41 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > > >> > > > > This from an academic article sent to me on 'bullshit >> > > >> > > > > attacks'. >> >> > > >> > > > > Walter Carnielli >> > > >> > > > > We want to argue that falling into a specific deceptive >> > > >> > > > > reasoning >> > > >> > > > > which >> > > >> > > > > we call bullshit attack is not anything irrational from our >> > > >> > > > > side, but >> > > >> > > > > rather a >> > > >> > > > > rational response from an opponent maneuver, and that the >> > > >> > > > > entire >> > > >> > > > > episode can >> > > >> > > > > bee seen as a game, where logic and a certain principle of >> > > >> > > > > rational >> > > >> > > > > discussion >> > > >> > > > > play essential roles. Indeed, an opponent may act coercively >> > > >> > > > > into our >> > > >> > > > > reasoning >> > > >> > > > > process by using irrelevant facts or assertions, and by >> > > >> > > > > telling half >> > > >> > > > > truths in such >> > > >> > > > > a way that we feel forced to “complete” the story in a way >> > > >> > > > > that >> > > >> > > > > interest the >> > > >> > > > > opponent, perhaps contrary to our own interests. >> > > >> > > > > Even to define what is “to deceive” is not easy. The act of >> > > >> > > > > deceiving >> > > >> > > > > would >> > > >> > > > > have to be intentional, and to involve causing a belief - but >> > > >> > > > > what >> > > >> > > > > about acting >> > > >> > > > > as to prevent a false belief to be revised by the other >> > > >> > > > > person? And >> > > >> > to >> > > >> > > > > act as to >> > > >> > > > > make the other person to cease to have a true belief, or to >> > > >> > > > > prevent >> > > >> > > > > the person >> > > >> > > > > from acquiring a certain true belief? Of course one can >> > > >> > > > > deceive by >> > > >> > > > > gestures, by >> > > >> > > > > irony and also by just making questions. So there seems to be >> > > >> > > > > no >> > > >> > > > > universally >> > > >> > > > > accepted definition of “deceiving” yet; we assume currently a >> > > >> > > > > definition stated >> > > >> > > > > in [17]: >> > > >> > > > > To deceive = to intentionally cause another person to have or >> > > >> > > > > continue >> > > >> > > > > to have a false belief that is truly believed to be false by >> > > >> > > > > the >> > > >> > > > > person >> > > >> > > > > intentionally causing the false belief by bringing about >> > > >> > > > > evidence on >> > > >> > > > > the basis of which the other person has or continues to have >> > > >> > > > > that >> > > >> > > > > false >> > > >> > > > > belief. >> >> > > >> > > > > Summary. This paper intends to open a discussion on how >> > > >> > > > > certain >> > > >> > > > > dangerous kinds >> > > >> > > > > of deceptive reasoning can be defined, in which way it is >> > > >> > > > > achieved in >> > > >> > > > > a discussion, >> > > >> > > > > and which would be the strategies for defense against such >> > > >> > > > > deceptive >> > > >> > > > > attacks on the >> > > >> > > > > light of some principles accepted as fundamental for >> > > >> > > > > rationality and >> > > >> > > > > logic. >> >> > > >> > > > > Last lines (after much on Tarski and Godel) - Starting from >> > > >> > > > > the >> > > >> > > > > understanding that what I am proposing here is not to use >> > > >> > > > > methods of >> > > >> > > > > formal or informal logic to analyze fallacies, but to pay due >> > > >> > > > > attention to principles that also affect logic, discerning the >> > > >> > reasons >> > > >> > > > > why we >> > > >> > > > > succumb under a bullshit attack may help us to understand why >> > > >> > > > > we >> >> ... >> >> read more » > > -- > > > --
