On 28/10/2021 13:06, lew wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 09:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>>>> Everything is fiction, at one level or another.
>>>
>>> Is the above statement fiction, at one level or another?
>>>
>> Yes
>
> If it is fiction it is false and so not true.
>
Bool has you in thrall...

--
“Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere,
diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”
― Groucho Marx

On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:41:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 27/10/2021 14:40, Bev wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:54:06 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/10/2021 11:03, Bev wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:16:47 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/10/2021 14:29, lew wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2021 13:32, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are some of Voltaire’s quotes. It’s a pity he isn’t around
>>>>>>> today to shout them from the rooftops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your
>>>>>>> right to say it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He didn't say it and it's unlikely he would have approved of the
>>>>>> sentiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter. That's not the point.
>>>>>
>>>> So the point is that you are not bothered about the truth but a view
>>>> that you wish to propagate which is not based on fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are confusing the validity of the ethic with the historical fact
>>> of its attribution.
>>>
>>> Do you now understand what I meant by 'that's not the point'?
>>>
>> Yep, you are not interested in the truth just your version of it.
>>
> Oh dear. Whooshed right over your head.
> I bet you are someone who thinks that science mathematics and all
> technology are basically invalid because it was all invented by White
> Men. Who might well have been considered racist today.

What on earth does this have to do with anything in this thread? Are you
displaying your own prejudices and preconceptioons once more?
>
> Williams point is that the quote stands no matter who may or may not
> have uttered it,

Perhaps I should offer a quote also:

"those who have little knowledge but inflated self opinions should remain
silent before they embarrass themselves"

The point is that it was a fabrication by him and he did not have the
decency to apologise for his lie when challenged and corrected.

On 28/10/2021 14:29, Bev wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 19:41:41 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2021 14:40, Bev wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:54:06 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/10/2021 11:03, Bev wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:16:47 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/10/2021 14:29, lew wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2021 13:32, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are some of Voltaire’s quotes. It’s a pity he isn’t around
>>>>>>>> today to shout them from the rooftops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your
>>>>>>>> right to say it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He didn't say it and it's unlikely he would have approved of the
>>>>>>> sentiment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter. That's not the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So the point is that you are not bothered about the truth but a view
>>>>> that you wish to propagate which is not based on fact.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You are confusing the validity of the ethic with the historical fact
>>>> of its attribution.
>>>>
>>>> Do you now understand what I meant by 'that's not the point'?
>>>>
>>> Yep, you are not interested in the truth just your version of it.
>>>
>> Oh dear. Whooshed right over your head.
>> I bet you are someone who thinks that science mathematics and all
>> technology are basically invalid because it was all invented by White
>> Men. Who might well have been considered racist today.
>
> What on earth does this have to do with anything in this thread? Are you
> displaying your own prejudices and preconceptioons once more?

Oh dear. whooshed again!

>>
>> Williams point is that the quote stands no matter who may or may not
>> have uttered it,
>
> Perhaps I should offer a quote also:
>
> "those who have little knowledge but inflated self opinions should remain
> silent before they embarrass themselves"
>

I wouldn't stare too long in a mirror..

> The point is that it was a fabrication by him and he did not have the
> decency to apologise for his lie when challenged and corrected.

He wasn't deliberately lying. He may have been mistaken. His mistake was
orthogonal to the point he was making

Do we all have to 'take the knee' to you?

--
Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns.

On 27/10/2021 14:40, Bev wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:54:06 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>
>> On 26/10/2021 11:03, Bev wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:16:47 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 24/10/2021 14:29, lew wrote:
>>>>> On 24/10/2021 13:32, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are some of Voltaire’s quotes. It’s a pity he isn’t around
>>>>>> today to shout them from the rooftops.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your
>>>>>> right to say it.
>>>>>
>>>>> He didn't say it and it's unlikely he would have approved of the
>>>>> sentiment.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter. That's not the point.
>>>>
>>> So the point is that you are not bothered about the truth but a view
>>> that you wish to propagate which is not based on fact.
>>>
>>>
>> You are confusing the validity of the ethic with the historical fact of
>> its attribution.
>>
>> Do you now understand what I meant by 'that's not the point'?
>>
> Yep, you are not interested in the truth just your version of it.
>
You still don't get it.

Bill

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:46:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> Do we all have to 'take the knee' to you?

What are you rambling on about?

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:59:37 +0100, williamwright wrote:

> On 27/10/2021 14:40, Bev wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:54:06 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>
>>> On 26/10/2021 11:03, Bev wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:16:47 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 24/10/2021 14:29, lew wrote:
>>>>>> On 24/10/2021 13:32, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are some of Voltaire’s quotes. It’s a pity he isn’t around
>>>>>>> today to shout them from the rooftops.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your
>>>>>>> right to say it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He didn't say it and it's unlikely he would have approved of the
>>>>>> sentiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't matter. That's not the point.
>>>>>
>>>> So the point is that you are not bothered about the truth but a view
>>>> that you wish to propagate which is not based on fact.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You are confusing the validity of the ethic with the historical fact
>>> of its attribution.
>>>
>>> Do you now understand what I meant by 'that's not the point'?
>>>
>> Yep, you are not interested in the truth just your version of it.
>>
> You still don't get it.
>
I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.

On 28 Oct 2021 at 15:27:07 BST, Bev <Bev@invalid.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:59:37 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>
>> On 27/10/2021 14:40, Bev wrote:
>>> On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 00:54:06 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 26/10/2021 11:03, Bev wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 24 Oct 2021 23:16:47 +0100, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 24/10/2021 14:29, lew wrote:
>>>>>>> On 24/10/2021 13:32, williamwright wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are some of Voltaire’s quotes. It’s a pity he isn’t around
>>>>>>>> today to shout them from the rooftops.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your
>>>>>>>> right to say it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He didn't say it and it's unlikely he would have approved of the
>>>>>>> sentiment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't matter. That's not the point.
>>>>>>
>>>>> So the point is that you are not bothered about the truth but a view
>>>>> that you wish to propagate which is not based on fact.
>>>>>
>>>> You are confusing the validity of the ethic with the historical fact
>>>> of its attribution.
>>>>
>>>> Do you now understand what I meant by 'that's not the point'?
>>>>
>>> Yep, you are not interested in the truth just your version of it.
>>>
>> You still don't get it.
>>
> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.

That's irrelavant either way. What's important is the sense of the quote.

Try to be less of a dimwit.

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On 28/10/2021 17:59, Tim Streater wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2021 at 15:27:07 BST, Bev <Bev@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
>> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.
>
> That's irrelavant either way. What's important is the sense of the quote.

Or rather the nonsense of it, as I've already explained in another post.

> Try to be less of a dimwit.

Follow your own advice.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 28 Oct 2021 at 18:26:14 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/10/2021 17:59, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 15:27:07 BST, Bev <Bev@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
>>> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.
>>
>> That's irrelavant either way. What's important is the sense of the quote.
>
> Or rather the nonsense of it, as I've already explained in another post.

Ah, it's Mr Rigid-and-Inflexible mind.

We're not interested in whether it's 100% mathematically true and accurate in
all circumstances, we're interested in the general sense of it, which is that
free speech in most circumstances should be allowed, supported, not prevented,
not illegal, and not harrassed, in particular by woke arseholes.

But perhaps you're one of the new Puritans. Been ducking or burning any
witches lately?

--
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence."
-- Christopher Hitchens

On 28/10/2021 19:25, Tim Streater wrote:
>
> On 28 Oct 2021 at 18:26:14 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Or rather the nonsense of it, as I've already explained in another post.
>
> Ah, it's Mr Rigid-and-Inflexible mind.

Hypocrite.

> We're not interested in whether it's 100% mathematically true and accurate in
> all circumstances, we're interested in the general sense of it, which is that
> free speech in most circumstances should be allowed, supported, not prevented,
> not illegal, and not harrassed, in particular by woke arseholes.

So, as no-one here disagrees with that, what point was Bill trying to
make? See below ...

> But perhaps you're one of the new Puritans. Been ducking or burning any
> witches lately?

No, just reporting an abusive and constantly nym-shifting anti-women
anti-gay arsehole troll here both to the police and his posting server.
For the moment at least, he has disappeared, which saves the rest of us
a great deal of time.

So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be. When you speak or post
in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common sense,
but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in the
name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called 'right'
that has never and doesn't actually exist.

--

Fake news kills!

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

On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> On 28/10/2021 19:25, Tim Streater wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Oct 2021 at 18:26:14 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> Or rather the nonsense of it, as I've already explained in another post.
>>
>> Ah, it's Mr Rigid-and-Inflexible mind.
>
> Hypocrite.
>
>> We're not interested in whether it's 100% mathematically true and accurate in
>> all circumstances, we're interested in the general sense of it, which is that
>> free speech in most circumstances should be allowed, supported, not prevented,
>> not illegal, and not harrassed, in particular by woke arseholes.
>
> So, as no-one here disagrees with that, what point was Bill trying to
> make? See below ...
>
>> But perhaps you're one of the new Puritans. Been ducking or burning any
>> witches lately?
>
> No, just reporting an abusive and constantly nym-shifting anti-women
> anti-gay arsehole troll here both to the police and his posting server.

Ah yes, you're one of these snowflakes we hear so much about.

> For the moment at least, he has disappeared, which saves the rest of us
> a great deal of time.
>
> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.

Try looking past your own arse.

> When you speak or post
> in a public space, you have to apply some social and legal common sense,
> but unfortunately there seem always to be some who think it their
> god-given right to abuse the technology that makes it possible in the
> name of this hypothetical right of 'free speech', a so-called 'right'
> that has never and doesn't actually exist.

Yes, we know all this, and agree with it. That's inherent in the expression.

--
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

On 28 Oct 2021 at 20:06:37 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> So I repeat, the quote commonly mis-ascribed to Voltaire is nonsense as
> it is commonly applied, viz that free-speech should always be respected
> no matter how abusive, indecent, hypocritical, downright false,
> libellous of innocent third parties, in bad taste, corrupt, offensive,
> dangerously misinformative, etc, etc, it may be.

None of these should be interefered with except libel.

And BTW most of what you say is abusive, hypocritical, downright false, in bad
taste, corrupt, offensive,
dangerously misinformative. IMO.

--
The truth of the matter is that we Scots have always been more divided amongst ourselves than pitted against the English. Scottish history before the Union of Parliaments is a gloomy, violent tale of murders, feuds, and tribal revenge. Only after the Act of Union did Highlanders and Lowlanders, Picts and Celts, begin to recognise one another as fellow citizens.

Tam Dalyell

On 27/10/2021 23:32, Indy Jess John wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 22:23, lew wrote:
>> On 27/10/2021 21:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> Everything is fiction, at one level or another.
>>
>> Is the above statement fiction, at one level or another?
>>
>
> All generalisations are false.
>
Generalisations are extremely useful when assessing probabilities.
Consider a trader faced with a new customer who is unknown to him. If
the trader has a reasonable sufficiency of business he will want to
discriminate between customers in order to avoid those who might give
him trouble. One way to do that is to generalise about customers based
on previous experience. Most people fall into a group of one sort or
another and often a trader will learn that members of a particular group
are more like to cause him trouble. This enables him to be wary of
customers who fall in that group.

Bill

On 28/10/2021 14:29, Bev wrote:
> The point is that it was a fabrication by him and he did not have the
> decency to apologise for his lie when challenged and corrected.

You sad, sad, man.

Bill

On 28/10/2021 15:24, Bev wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 14:46:16 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> Do we all have to 'take the knee' to you?
>
> What are you rambling on about?
>

He's got you sussed mate.

Bill

On 28/10/2021 15:27, Bev wrote:
> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of the
> 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.

I explained the true situation, which was clearly too subtle for you to
grasp.

Bill

On 28/10/2021 20:06, Java Jive wrote:
> No, just reporting an abusive and constantly nym-shifting anti-women
> anti-gay arsehole troll here both to the police and his posting server.

Funny how lefties only believe in freedom for themselves and not for others.

Bill

On 28/10/2021 23:04, williamwright wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 23:32, Indy Jess John wrote:
>> On 27/10/2021 22:23, lew wrote:
>>> On 27/10/2021 21:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> Everything is fiction, at one level or another.
>>>
>>> Is the above statement fiction, at one level or another?
>>>
>>
>> All generalisations are false.
>>
> Generalisations are extremely useful when assessing probabilities.
> Consider a trader faced with a new customer who is unknown to him. If
> the trader has a reasonable sufficiency of business he will want to
> discriminate between customers in order to avoid those who might give
> him trouble. One way to do that is to generalise about customers based
> on previous experience. Most people fall into a group of one sort or
> another and often a trader will learn that members of a particular group
> are more like to cause him trouble. This enables him to be wary of
> customers who fall in that group.
>
> Bill

I don't disagree with what you say - in fact it is not just traders who
use these techniques.

But all I was doing was throwing a paradox into the discussion.
"All generalisations are false" is in itself a generalisation.

Jim

On 28/10/2021 23:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
use these techniques.
>
> But all I was doing was throwing a paradox into the discussion.
> "All generalisations are false" is in itself a generalisation.

Are you sure? It seems specific to me. Now if you'd said "Some
generalisations are false...", that's a different matter. ;-)

--

Jeff

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 09:24:30 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 27/10/2021 23:49, lew wrote:
>> On 27/10/2021 23:32, Indy Jess John wrote:
>>
>>>>> Everything is fiction, at one level or another.
>>>>
>>>> Is the above statement fiction, at one level or another?
>>>>
>>>
>>> All generalisations are false.
>>
>> But that's a generalisation.
>>  --
>> Lew
>
>Joking apart. the key to paradox is statements that are self referential
>like:
>
>'this statement is a lie'
>
>'does the set of all sets contain itself?'
>
>and so on.
>
>Paradox only really exists in the world of Boolean logic.
>
>Statements about the RealWorld™ are always only approximately true, and
>never demonstrably true,
>
>Even Cartesian bollocks like 'I think, therefore I am' is completely
>open to arguments about what existence means, and the nature of the self.

Self-reference can exist in the real world of electronics with nothing
more complicated than a relay that is wired threough it's own normally
closed contacts. It's either a logical paradox or a doorbell.

Rod.

In article <iu0l38FkjfbU1@mid.individual.net>,
williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> On 27/10/2021 23:32, Indy Jess John wrote:
> > On 27/10/2021 22:23, lew wrote:
> >> On 27/10/2021 21:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> Everything is fiction, at one level or another.
> >>
> >> Is the above statement fiction, at one level or another?
> >>
> >
> > All generalisations are false.
> >
> Generalisations are extremely useful when assessing probabilities.
> Consider a trader faced with a new customer who is unknown to him. If
> the trader has a reasonable sufficiency of business he will want to
> discriminate between customers in order to avoid those who might give
> him trouble. One way to do that is to generalise about customers based
> on previous experience. Most people fall into a group of one sort or
> another and often a trader will learn that members of a particular group
> are more like to cause him trouble. This enables him to be wary of
> customers who fall in that group.

That also applies the other way round. Some 60 years ago, I needed to pay
by check for some gardening product, but I didn't have my cheque guarantee
card with me. The lady who ran theshop siad, "nobody who want a garden
product would be disonest"

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

In article <iu0890Fi7jhU1@mid.individual.net>,
Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> On 28 Oct 2021 at 18:26:14 BST, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:

> > On 28/10/2021 17:59, Tim Streater wrote:
> >>
> >> On 28 Oct 2021 at 15:27:07 BST, Bev <Bev@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I get that you either lied or were ignorant as to the origin of
> >>> the 'quote' but are not willing to apologise for it.
> >>
> >> That's irrelavant either way. What's important is the sense of
> >> the quote.
> >
> > Or rather the nonsense of it, as I've already explained in
> > another post.

> Ah, it's Mr Rigid-and-Inflexible mind.

> We're not interested in whether it's 100% mathematically true and
> accurate in all circumstances, we're interested in the general
> sense of it, which is that free speech in most circumstances should
> be allowed, supported, not prevented, not illegal, and not
> harrassed, in particular by woke arseholes.

> But perhaps you're one of the new Puritans. Been ducking or burning
> any witches lately?

+1,000,000,000 etc.

Bob.

In article <5982e61c07charles@candehope.me.uk>,
charles <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> In article <iu0l38FkjfbU1@mid.individual.net>,
> williamwright <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:
> > On 27/10/2021 23:32, Indy Jess John wrote:
> > > On 27/10/2021 22:23, lew wrote:
> > >> On 27/10/2021 21:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> Everything is fiction, at one level or another.
> > >>
> > >> Is the above statement fiction, at one level or another?
> > >>
> > >
> > > All generalisations are false.
> > >
> > Generalisations are extremely useful when assessing probabilities.
> > Consider a trader faced with a new customer who is unknown to him. If
> > the trader has a reasonable sufficiency of business he will want to
> > discriminate between customers in order to avoid those who might give
> > him trouble. One way to do that is to generalise about customers based
> > on previous experience. Most people fall into a group of one sort or
> > another and often a trader will learn that members of a particular
> > group are more like to cause him trouble. This enables him to be wary
> > of customers who fall in that group.

> That also applies the other way round. Some 60 years ago, I needed to pay
> by check

i should have typed "cheque"

> for some gardening product, but I didn't have my cheque guarantee
> card with me. The lady who ran theshop siad, "nobody who want a garden
> product would be disonest"

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

On 29/10/2021 07:48, Jeff Layman wrote:
> On 28/10/2021 23:19, Indy Jess John wrote:
> use these techniques.
>>
>> But all I was doing was throwing a paradox into the discussion.
>> "All generalisations are false" is in itself a generalisation.
>
> Are you sure? It seems specific to me. Now if you'd said "Some
> generalisations are false...", that's a different matter. ;-)
>

Absolutely sure.
"Some generalisations are false" is a factual statement; some are, some
aren't.
"All generalisations are false" is a generalisation and therefore
according to the statement, as a generalisation has to be false, but in
reality some generalisations are true so they can't all be false.

It doesn't stand up to strict scrutiny, but at first sight it is a paradox.

Jim

On Thu, 28 Oct 2021 23:06:18 +0100, williamwright wrote:

> On 28/10/2021 14:29, Bev wrote:
>> The point is that it was a fabrication by him and he did not have the
>> decency to apologise for his lie when challenged and corrected.
>
> You sad, sad, man.
>
> Bill

Oooh that hurt me so badly.

Ready to apologise for your fabrication yet or do you hope it will get
forgotten?