Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > Did O'Reilly lie about sexually harassing his employee, or did he just 
> > admit to everything off the bat?  The audio tapes didn't leave much 
> > doubt about what he did (as a married man with small children).
>
> Now that is a juicy story.  Why don't you elucidate on this one?  I have 
> to say that I had not heard of this (although now that I think about it 
> maybe Bill alluded to something about this, but no details whatsoever). 
> Boy, why leave the really good stuff until last.  I mean, if this is 
> true, then why put out the idiotic "how many times did he say 'shut up'" 
> kind of stuff.
>
> Please, tell me more about this one.

I did write about it yesterday.  I don't know which things you read and 
which things you skip over.  It was at the end of this one:

http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/discussion/2007-02/msg00655.php3

This is the link to official documents:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html


> > I agree that would be worse.  But how would you know it was a lie?  He 
> > might just say "my secretary did that" or "how did htat get there?" or 
> > "I meant Polk but it came out as Peabody."  Anything would work with 
> > you.
>
> I don't think so.  I think it is you just expressing your frustration, 
> because so far you haven't produced a lot of good evidence, and the 
> little good stuff you have produced you only did so when I gave you 
> quite clear directions.  Somehow you have difficulty understanding the 
> different between a major lie, and a little exageration.  As I said 
> earlier, both are bad, but to my mind one is clearly worse than the 
> other.

The problem, actually, is that you skip over most of the things I write, 
then you pretend that I didn't make a good case, then I have to repeat 
myself.  All along you pick and choose what you'll believe, what you'll 
reject.  There is no obvious pattern except that it is serves to 
perpetuate the position you are starting from.


> > > I would also count Clinton's denial of committing adultery at this 
> > > level, because even if Clinton's use of the word 'is' could, in lawyer 
> > > speak, be considered completely correct, there was an intent to 
> > > deceive and give a completely different impression of what happened 
> > > than what actually did happen.
> >
> >
> > Right.  Not admitting to adultery is something that no one would do and 
> > that "confers a significant advantage" to the individual.
>
> Yes.  This was during a court hearing concerning allegations of sexual 
> harrassment.  Obviously the judge had decided that the question about 
> Clinton's other sexual activities was a relevant question.  Thus Clinton 
> had a legal obligation to answer the question.  While his answer was, 
> apparently, the truth and nothing but the truth, it clearly was not the 
> whole truth.  He committed purjury in a court case, and his answer 
> conceivably played a large role in its outcome.

If you are very concerned about this episode, you probably know that the 
court presented to Clinton a definition of "sex" and asked him if he had 
had sex with Monica Lewinsky according to their definition of that term. 
Did you know that?  If so, what was the court's definition of "sex"?

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion