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

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Mike Miller wrote:
> 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:

OK, I'm sorry.  I guess I saw a bunch of youtubes, and thought that it 
was more of the same.


> This is the link to official documents:
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html

Unfortunately this one is extremely difficult to evaluate.  As far as I 
can see, there simply is no evidence beyond one person's word against 
the other.  Even several other women coming forward and saying that 
similar things happened to them would greatly bolster the case.

Obviously if the allegations are true, then the woman was extremely 
badly treated.  But it is just totally impossible to make any kind of 
proper judgment.

O'Reilly's shake-down accusations are, unfortunately, just as plausible 
as the woman's accusation.  Obviously, they are the only two who know 
the real truth.  Both of their actions and reactions are consistent with 
someone who is telling and knows the truth, although obviously only one 
of them really is telling the truth.  In the absence of further 
evidence, one simply cannot decide who is in the right here.

> > > 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.

OK, OK.  I don't do it on purpose.  It is not a question of picking and 
choosing.  Rather I tend to pick the pieces of evidence at random.  If I 
find the first few pieces to be of dubious quality, I decide not to read 
much further.

But also, now that I have seen the evidence of sexual harassment, I can 
now see why you didn't present this as your prime evidence.  It really 
is of the same quality as the other pieces of evidence.  Although if it 
could be independently verified, I agree that it would be totally huge.

> > > > 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"?

Now that you mention it, I think I do remember this detail.  But my 
impression was that there was some negotiation as to what this 
definition should be.  I think that even the need for the existence of a 
definition shows that Clinton was seeking to deceive the court over this 
matter.  The information was clearly pertinent to the case at hand, and 
any honest person would simply have revealed the information.  (But then 
again, an honest person probably wouldn't have had the affair in the 
first place.)

This is clearly an act of someone lying with intent to gain significant 
advantage.  And whether the advantage was real or perceived is not 
important, it is the intent that matters.  So if you argue that Clinton 
would have won the case even if this information had been revealed, this 
simply is not relevant.

But also, unless my memory is incorrect, I do recall that the judge, or 
at least someone with the appropriate authority, did eventually rule 
that Clinton had committed perjury.

Stephen

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