You could assert the same about a magic act on stage at Vegas. I shall, however, continue to insist that, to the extent a thing depends on deception, it is not open - and to the degree it is open, it is not deception.
As this discussion has now ventured into the Pythonesque, I can only add examples you might favor, such as "military justice", Christian Rock, Arab Unity and honest politicians............... or a certain ( living) Norwegian Blue Parrot. ________________________________ From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:11 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Bribing 2,000 climatologists Zell, Chris <chrisz...@wetmtv.com<mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote: This deception was "practiced openly"(???). I can also offer definitions of 'oxymoron" or 'contradiction in terms', if that would help. Many deceptions are openly practiced. As I said, a politician running for office may say: "crime has risen to sky high levels since my opponent took office!" even though the statistics show that crime has dropped. The candidate hopes that the voters will take his word for this and not fact-check the assertion. Voters often do take a politicians at their word, especially when they say something that makes their opponent look bad. People are always ready to believe the worst about someone. The recent presidential campaign was chock full of bogus assertions boldly stated, which anyone could fact-check. I will not list any, to avoid politicizing the discussion. The point is, people often lie about things that the audience could catch if they bothered. In cold fusion, for example, opponents often say: "no peer-reviewed papers have ever been published about cold fusion." That is nonsense. It is a matter of fact that many peer-reviewed papers have been published. Anyone can go to a library and find them. You might assert that all these papers are wrong, but to say they do not exist is an outrageous lie. The editors of the Scientific American get away with this because their readers are lazy and they do not bother to check. Scientific American readers are inclined to believe the worst about cold fusion researchers. A lie that fits in well with the audience's prejudices and phobias will seldom be questioned. - Jed
