On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory

I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.

I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for
Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
more rapid changes over a few years.

But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
Change cult.

On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
wrote:

>On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
>>This indicates your problem  (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or
>>opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can
>>disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of
>>research, start with some definitions.
>>
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>
>:-)
>
>Jim

That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years
ago :-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
All those who believe in psychokinesis raise my hand.

On 16/06/2022 12:07, Max Demian wrote:
It had an article
> about "wireless communication" including "radio" (a ULW crystal set).
> The articles were very wide ranging including stuffing animals. (No
> sniggering at the back).
>

I built a crystal set with a crystal and cat's whisker and it did work
:-)

I have an ancient encyclopaedia. In it there is an article on
aeronautics which tells me that "There is no evidence that heavier than
air flight will ever be commercially viable". It is as accurate now as
IBMs assessment that there may perhaps be a market for up to 6 computers.

Tempus fugit.

Jim

On 10/07/2022 14:46, MB wrote:

> I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
> Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
> more rapid changes over a few years.

I read somewhere that each ice age was preceded by a couple of centuries
of abnormally high temperatures. I also read that we are in the window
where a new ice age is due according to the patterns of the past.

I will never live long enough to find out if either is true. I have no
doubts that the Earth will survive, because it always has, given enough
time. Whether the human race survives or not I will never know, but the
human race is resourceful so pockets here and there might do so even if
both of the above are true

Jim

On 10/07/2022 in message <tael0d$1d14s$1@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
wrote:

>On 15/06/2022 11:43, Jim Lesurf wrote:
>
>>I recall reading that at one time some held the "view" that travelling
>>much
>>faster than a horse could gallop would cause them to lose consciousness as
>>the air whooshed out of their lungs. This view turned out to be false.
>
>Brunel ran into this mentality. He needed to tunnel under Box Hill. He
>was told that at the speed his train would be travelling everybody on the
>train would suffocate in the tunnel. He got past the objection by
>building a tunnel with a gradient so that if everybody died the train
>would continue out of the tunnel by gravity so that rescuers did not
>suffer from the lack of air problem getting to the victims.
>
>Funny enough, nobody has died in the tunnel (except some idiot who decided
>to walk through and got hit by a train), despite trains now capable of
>125mph through it.
>
>Every theory has its detractors before the theory is finally accepted as
>being right. Gallileo was hounded for suggesting that the Earth went
>round the sun.
>
>Jim

Is this the tunnel that the sun shines through on his birthday each year?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Tell me what you need, and I'll tell you how to get along without it.

On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>
>I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
>
>I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book. She describes how (for Millennia)
>there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but more rapid
>changes over a few years.
>
>But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate Change
>cult.

We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
climate is not fashionable of course.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.
(Ken Olson, president Digital Equipment, 1977)

On 10/07/2022 15:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>
>> On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>>
>> I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
>>
>> I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
>> Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
>> more rapid changes over a few years.
>>
>> But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
>> Change cult.
>
> We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
> climate is not fashionable of course.

Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were
driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for
decades now that humans are warming the planet.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/07/2022 14:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
> wrote:
>>
>> On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> This indicates your problem  (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views
>>> or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others,
>>> can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a
>>> bit of research, start with some definitions.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>
> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years
> ago :-)

So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the known
facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known facts.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 28/06/2022 10:14 am, Jim Lesurf wrote:
> In article <jhthjlF44a1U5@mid.individual.net>, JNugent
> <jennings&co@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>> That may well have been true in some cases. However the house I was
>>> brought up in until about 10 years old was one of a set of similar
>>> houses that were best dealt with by demolition and replacement. I
>>> wasn't aware they were 'slums' at the time, but looking back, yes they
>>> were.
>>>
>>> Outside loos with no lights and only accessible via an outside door,
>>> not from the house. Coal celler under the stairs, resting on the bare
>>> ground. My bedroom got a pile of snow along the *inside* of the window
>>> when it snowed outside. When it rained I saw the damp patches on the
>>> ceiling caused by the leaks in the sagging roof of the terrace. etc.
>
>> All of those things would have been easy (and relatively cheap) to
>> repair.
>
>> And the council wouldn't have managed to get their dirty mitts on the
>> land (the main objective in most cases).
>
> One of the snags was that they were owned by private landlords. So it would
> have been their responsibility to repair them. Trying to enforce that would
> have driven up rents, or caused the landlords to evict, demolish, and then
> rent out at much higher prices the new builds.

There was no chance of getting landlords to repair or improve property
which had been condemned by local authorities, with an approximate
demolition year identified.

> Simple repairs would have then meant having further 'repairs' as the whole
> set of houses were badly made on bugger-all as foundations, etc.

That simply isn't true.

The houses I am thinking of were not subsiding. Maybe some were in
Southport (where even 1930s semis are sinking), but not in Liverpool, on
a bed of sandstone.

> So having direct experience of them, I know well enough that the simplest -
> and in the end least costly - solution was to knock down and start again.

Simplest, certainly. It also had the advantage for the local authority
that they were able to "buy" the land for pennies rather than pounds.

> The problem, though, was that they demolished and did nothing with the
> land, then built a multi-story crap rack. Then knocked that down, etc. Its
> now the area where they have the new 'Stratford International' complex of
> stations and the Olympics Park! After a succession of 're developments'
> came and went.

I'm not talking about London (even though similar things happened there).

> The local council was heavily populated with local property builders and
> speculators. Fancy handshakes and aprons. Go figger.

Local authorities - everywhere - are always involved with builders and
re-developers. You might just as well observe that they are always
involved with binmen, teachers and tarmacadaming companies. It goes with
the territory.
>
> The one good thing they *did do* was build a lot of - much better to live
> in - flats. Problem being the way people were then scatterred about or
> shuffled out of the area.
>
> And of course the flats got flogged off and not replaced when the Tories
> found that it suited them in many ways...

It suited the occupants better. And it disrupted the
hitherto-unchallenged ownership of huge swathes of land by local
authorities. Possibly to the chagrin of developers - especially in the
north-east - who were hoping to come to understandings with certain
elected members.

On 10/07/2022 in message <taeq8s$1dg0r$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 15:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>>
>>>On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>
>>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>>>
>>>I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
>>>
>>>I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
>>>Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
>>>more rapid changes over a few years.
>>>
>>>But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
>>>Change cult.
>>
>>We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
>>climate is not fashionable of course.
>
>Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were driven
>by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for decades now
>that humans are warming the planet.

Accepted by whom, "they"?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
George Washington was a British subject until well after his 40th birthday.
(Margaret Thatcher, speech at the White House 17 December 1979)

On 10/07/2022 in message <taeqde$1dg0r$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 14:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>
>>On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess John
>>wrote:
>>>
>>>On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>
>>>>This indicates your problem  (and that of your monkey) exactly. Views or
>>>>opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and others, can
>>>>disagree with them but saying the are wrong is ludicrous. Do a bit of
>>>>research, start with some definitions.
>>>
>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>>
>>That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years
>>ago :-)
>
>So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the known
>facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known facts.

Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
you?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 10/07/2022 16:32, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taeq8s$1dg0r$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 15:25, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2022 in message <tael6q$1d1p5$1@dont-email.me> MB wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/07/2022 14:34, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if the "Climate Change" claims will be similarly laughed at.
>>>>
>>>> I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
>>>> Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate
>>>> but more rapid changes over a few years.
>>>>
>>>> But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
>>>> Change cult.
>>>
>>> We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
>>> climate is not fashionable of course.
>>
>> Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were
>> driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for
>> decades now that humans are warming the planet.
>
> Accepted by whom, "they"?

Anyone with a basic understanding of planetary science.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/07/2022 16:33, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taeqde$1dg0r$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>> On 10/07/2022 14:47, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>
>>> On 10/07/2022 in message <taekhu$1cr09$2@dont-email.me> Indy Jess
>>> John wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 15/06/2022 10:22, Jeff Gaines wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> This indicates your problem  (and that of your monkey) exactly.
>>>>> Views  or opinions cannot by definition be false or wrong. You, and
>>>>> others,  can disagree with them but saying the are wrong is
>>>>> ludicrous. Do a  bit of research, start with some definitions.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
>>>
>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>> years ago :-)
>>
>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>> facts.
>
> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
> you?

You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 10/07/2022 in message <taeroe$1dla0$1@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>>>>I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
>>>>>Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
>>>>>more rapid changes over a few years.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I had better be careful as it is heresy to question the Climate
>>>>>Change cult.
>>>>
>>>>We're about half way between ice ages but any suggestion that affects
>>>>climate is not fashionable of course.
>>>
>>>Nonsense, it's been accepted for decades now that the ice ages were
>>>driven by Milankovitch cycles, just as it's also been accepted for
>>>decades now that humans are warming the planet.
>>
>>Accepted by whom, "they"?
>
>Anyone with a basic understanding of planetary science.

Ah, that's why it went over my head.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Have you ever noticed that all the instruments searching for intelligent
life are pointing away from Earth?

On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

>>>>That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated years
>>>>ago :-)
>>>
>>>So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the known
>>>facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known facts.
>>
>>Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
>>you?
>
>You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?

I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in marketing,
they will be able to put you right on how opinions are formed, and more
interestingly, what is involved in changing them.

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
If it's not broken, mess around with it until it is

On 10/07/2022 05:32 pm, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>
>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>> facts.
>>>
>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
>>> do you?
>>
>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>
> I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
> point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
> marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
> formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.

DFTTs.

In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
<jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:

> >>>>That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
> >>>>years ago :-)
> >>>
> >>>So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
> >>>known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
> >>>facts.
> >>
> >>Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
> >>do you?
> >
> >You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?

> I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
> point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
> marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
> formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.

Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/07/2022 in message <5a05e72bc5charles@candehope.me.uk> charles wrote:

>In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>>>That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>>years ago :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>>known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>>facts.
>>>>
>>>>Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
>>>>do you?
>>>
>>>You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>
>>I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
>>point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
>>marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
>>formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
>
>Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.

Absolutely wrong, see my advice to Java Jive. Many things in life go
towards forming opinions, facts form a very small part if it.

Why do you think companies spend so much on marketing to change/form
opinions?

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Those are my principles – and if you don’t like them, well, I have others.
(Groucho Marx)

On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
> In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>> facts.
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
>>>> do you?
>>>
>>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>
>> I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
>> point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
>> marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
>> formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
>
> Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
>

That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion
starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 10/07/2022 15:06, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 16/06/2022 12:07, Max Demian wrote:

> It had an article
>> about "wireless communication" including "radio" (a ULW crystal set).
>> The articles were very wide ranging including stuffing animals. (No
>> sniggering at the back).
>>
>
> I built a crystal set with a crystal and cat's whisker and it did work
> :-)
>
> I have an ancient encyclopaedia.  In it there is an article on
> aeronautics which tells me that "There is no evidence that heavier than
> air flight will ever be commercially viable".  It is as accurate now as
> IBMs assessment that there may perhaps be a market for up to 6 computers.

I had a (purple) school text book published in 1965 which described
liquid crystals and described them as interesting but of no practical use.

--
Max Demian

On 10/07/2022 15:17, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 14:46, MB wrote:
>
>> I am reading one of Alice Robrts' book.  She describes how (for
>> Millennia) there has been a slow (100,000 year) change in climate but
>> more rapid changes over a few years.
>
> I read somewhere that each ice age was preceded by a couple of centuries
> of abnormally high temperatures.  I also read that we are in the window
> where a new ice age is due according to the patterns of the past.

In the 70s there were TV programmes warning of a new ice age.

--
Max Demian

On 10/07/2022 in message
<84289dd2-947e-e888-5470-6e4be452e8e1@outlook.com> Robin wrote:

>On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
>>In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>><jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>>>years ago :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>>>known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>>>facts.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
>>>>>do you?
>>>>
>>>>You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>>
>>>I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
>>>point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
>>>marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
>>>formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
>>
>>Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
>>
>
>That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion
>starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."

Yes. I should have acknowledged it may be charles' opinion in which case I
may not agree with it but will defend to the death his right to express it
:-)

--
Jeff Gaines Dorset UK
Though no-one can go back and make a new start, everyone can start from
now and make a new ending.

In article <84289dd2-947e-e888-5470-6e4be452e8e1@outlook.com>,
Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 17:55, charles wrote:
> > In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
> > <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
> >>>>>> years ago :-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
> >>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
> >>>>> facts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
> >>>> do you?
> >>>
> >>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
> >
> >> I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
> >> point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
> >> marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
> >> formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
> >
> > Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.
> >

> That may be your opinion but the fact is the OED's definitiom of opinion
> starts "What or how one thinks about something; judgement or belief."

whereas Chambers: "what seems to one to be probably true"; Shakesperean
use: "Arrogance"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

On 10/07/2022 18:03, Jeff Gaines wrote:
> On 10/07/2022 in message <5a05e72bc5charles@candehope.me.uk> charles wrote:
>
>> In article <xn0nk7cpi9163se01a@news.individual.net>, Jeff Gaines
>> <jgaines_newsid@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 10/07/2022 in message <taerpo$1dla0$2@dont-email.me> Java Jive wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>>>>> years ago :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>>>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is
>>>>> do you?
>>>>
>>>> You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?
>>
>>> I believe I do and am, in fact, waiting for whoever made the claim to
>>> point me to where I "lied". Why don't you speak to somebody in
>>> marketing, they will be able to put you right on how opinions are
>>> formed, and more interestingly, what is involved in changing them.
>>
>> Opinions should be based on fact, not marketing hype.

Exactly, this is the point he can't or won't understand.

> Absolutely wrong, see my advice to Java Jive. Many things in life go
> towards forming opinions, facts form a very small part if it.

Which is why the world in general and the UK in particular is in the
shit that it's in.

> Why do you think companies spend so much on marketing to change/form
> opinions?

Because they think it will be cheaper to do that than change what
they're doing trashing the earth.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Sun, 10 Jul 2022 16:38:31 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>>>> That's a theory not an opinion and anyway it was dephlogisticated
>>>> years ago :-)
>>>
>>> So it became just an erroneous opinion that didn't agree with the
>>> known facts, just as your erroneous opinions don't agree with known
>>> facts.
>>
>> Oh dear, not you again. You still don't understand what an opinion is do
>> you?
>
>You still don't understand what a lie is, do you?

I do, and so does the Oxford English Dictionary.

It's a deliberate untruth, intended to deceive.

I don't think anyone intends to deceive anyone simply by expressing an
opinion that someone else might not agree with.

Rod.