Maybe because in your post it did seem like you were the writer of that what I meant. Be more clear next time in your posts, or shut up.
Maybe because in your post it did seem like you were the writer of that what I meant. Be more clear next time in your posts, or shut up.
"truth:",
Nested quotes aren't handled right in this forum, which can make who said what even more confusing. "Skuj" didn't say that stuff, but "white lie" did, and "Skuj" just double quoted him.
"white lie" was attacking "Skuj" (and by reference, you) -- looks like it might be a personal thing between them.
Whatever sins "Skuj" committed in the past, I think (naively, of course), he is an innocent victim here.
It may look like he over-reacted -- but this kind of thing seems to happen to him a lot. He was just defending his (good?) name.
PS: To call an exaggeration a lie, is an exaggeration -- no, no, no, I don't want to get involved, run away...
Why is this thread still here?Most of my "sins" have been imagined, and perpetuated by people who should know better - people who, even when presented with "evidence", still stick to their line, in order to save face. (I'm talking about well known posters here, not mere trolls like white lie.)
Voice of Ray-san wrote:
"truth:",
Nested quotes aren't handled right in this forum, which can make who said what even more confusing. "Skuj" didn't say that stuff, but "white lie" did, and "Skuj" just double quoted him.
"white lie" was attacking "Skuj" (and by reference, you) -- looks like it might be a personal thing between them.
Whatever sins "Skuj" committed in the past, I think (naively, of course), he is an innocent victim here.
It may look like he over-reacted -- but this kind of thing seems to happen to him a lot. He was just defending his (good?) name.
PS: To call an exaggeration a lie, is an exaggeration -- no, no, no, I don't want to get involved, run away...
Voice of Ray-san wrote:
PS: To call an exaggeration a lie, is an exaggeration
Now YOU exaggerated.
OK, I know I don't want to get involved, but in a vain attempt to salvage this thread by including at least one useful point, let's have a small English lesson about the opposite of "truth": "lies".
The problem with your simple definition of "lie", is that it's too simple, tending to render the word meaningless.
You may want to research the many (16 classifications!) kinds of lies here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie
You will see, that simply lying is, in fact, not always so simple. For example, from wikipedia, "... even a true statement can be considered a lie if the person making that statement is doing so to deceive."
Wow. Even a true statement can be a lie, depending on the context. I cannot reconcile that with your simple equation: "not telling the truth" = "lie".
They explain exaggeration:
"An exaggeration (see also hyperbole) occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. It is also seen as "stretching the truth" or making something appear more powerful, meaningful, or real than it actually is."
So, for example, if Lydiard "exaggerates" his role in Finland, for you to call that "exaggeration" a "lie", is fundamentally true, but only to a certain degree. That is to say, the statement "Lydiard lied" qualifies as an exaggeration, and therefore by the same logic and definition, is also a lie. (And truth be told, my calling your statement a lie, by the same reasoning, is another exaggeration, und so weiter, ad infinitum, ad absurdium).
It would more accurate to use the weaker statement that "Lydiard exaggerated". But presumably your intent is to attempt a deception, using the much stronger statement, trying to make your point "more powerful than it really is", and unwittingly provoking a stronger reaction. It should come as no surprise then, when the stronger reaction comes. This is one of Newton's laws: "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction".
So there is a small English lesson, sprinkled with a little physics.
Voice of Ray-san wrote:
It would more accurate to use the weaker statement that "Lydiard exaggerated". But presumably your intent is to attempt a deception, using the much stronger statement, trying to make your point "more powerful than it really is", and unwittingly provoking a stronger reaction.
I don´t have this intent what you are claiming, I don´t need to try to make my point more powerful than it is because I have only told what Mr. Vasala told in his book. That "english lesson" gave nothing new to me and changed nothing.
For me the truth is 100% true, if one tells a story that is almost true, then it´s not THE TRUTH.
NOT
I can lead the horse to water, but I can not make him drink.
the truth: wrote:
I don´t have this intent what you are claiming, I don´t need to try to make my point more powerful than it is because I have only told what Mr. Vasala told in his book. That "english lesson" gave nothing new to me and changed nothing.
For me the truth is 100% true, if one tells a story that is almost true, then it´s not THE TRUTH.
Ray-san, why do you bother replying on this stupid thread?
You are right...
"The (Finnish) renaissance began in 1967, when Arthur Lydiard arrived in Finland" - Matti Hannus, author of 'Finish Running Secrets'
"The man who relit the (Finnish) fire was New Zealand magician Arthur Lydiard" - Lennart Strand in Runners World right before the 1972 Olympics
Chuckster wrote:
"The (Finnish) renaissance began in 1967, when Arthur Lydiard arrived in Finland" - Matti Hannus, author of 'Finish Running Secrets'
"The man who relit the (Finnish) fire was New Zealand magician Arthur Lydiard" - Lennart Strand in Runners World right before the 1972 Olympics
So what? How is that related to the subject of this thread?
Just to make this clear, I have not questioned Lydiard´s influence and importance in Finland.
the truth: wrote:
Just to make this clear, I have not questioned Lydiard´s influence and importance in Finland.
Yes, but you are gay. I read it in a book.
The Truth 2 wrote:
Yes, but you are gay. I read it in a book.
Don't exaggerate.
The Truth 2 wrote:
Yes, but you are gay. I read it in a book.
No, I have a common-law wife.
told you a million times wrote:
The Truth 2 wrote:Yes, but you are gay. I read it in a book.
Don't exaggerate.
And this post didn´t come from me but I agree with him/her.
the truth: wrote:
The Truth 2 wrote:Yes, but you are gay. I read it in a book.
No, I have a common-law wife.
That's just a cover, you are lying. You like men, I saw it in a TV interview in the 70's. Some finnish guy talking about you.
The Truth 2 wrote:
That's just a cover, you are lying. You like men, I saw it in a TV interview in the 70's. Some finnish guy talking about you.
That´s impossible because I was born in the 80's, you moron.
the truth: wrote:
The Truth 2 wrote:That's just a cover, you are lying. You like men, I saw it in a TV interview in the 70's. Some finnish guy talking about you.
That´s impossible because I was born in the 80's, you moron.
That's what I meant, it was in the 80's! You are a homo, it's official, I read it in a book.