On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:42:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:

> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>
> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
> just that it's possible.

I see a clear difference between those.

What I don't always see is a clear difference between "persuasive" and
"convincing".

To me the difference is that you persuade someone to DO something, while
you convince someone that something is the case.

But not everyone seems to use them in that way.

--
Steve Hayes http://khanya.wordpress.com

In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:39:22 -0000 (UTC), Steve
Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:42:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:
>
>> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
>> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>>
>> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
>> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
>> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
>> just that it's possible.
>
>I see a clear difference between those.
>
>What I don't always see is a clear difference between "persuasive" and
>"convincing".
>
>To me the difference is that you persuade someone to DO something, while
>you convince someone that something is the case.
>
>But not everyone seems to use them in that way.

My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than persuasive. After
someone hear's convincing argumments, he's convinced. After
persuasive, he's just leaning farther toward the side argued. I'll try
to bone up on this before my next SC oral argument.

--
Please say where you live, or what
area's English you are asking about.
So your question or answer makes sense.
. .
I have lived all my life in the USA,
Western Pa. Indianapolis, Chicago,
Brooklyn, Baltimore.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 11:13:02 -0400, micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com>
wrote:

>In alt.usage.english, on Wed, 28 Jul 2021 10:39:22 -0000 (UTC), Steve
>Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 22:42:27 +0000, John Doe wrote:
>>
>>> Right or wrong in their usage of "credible" and "persuasive", the
>>> authors might have been thinking about the opposite of "incredible".
>>>
>>> An example... You arrive late to work. An incredible excuse would be "I
>>> was abducted by aliens." Your actual credible excuse is "I had a flat
>>> tire." Their use of "credible" doesn't mean the testimony is persuasive,
>>> just that it's possible.
>>
>>I see a clear difference between those.
>>
>>What I don't always see is a clear difference between "persuasive" and
>>"convincing".
>>
>>To me the difference is that you persuade someone to DO something, while
>>you convince someone that something is the case.
>>
>>But not everyone seems to use them in that way.
>
>My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than persuasive. After
>someone hear's convincing argumments, he's convinced. After
>persuasive, he's just leaning farther toward the side argued. I'll try
>to bone up on this before my next SC oral argument.

I'll go with, "convincing is stronger than persuasive."

Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts
for meaning of a couple of similar words, "specious" and
"plausible" which once were adjectives to hope for.

I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused
both words in exercises of self-praise. I understand
"specious" as looking good but being false. "Plausible"
is what I might have used in place of "credible" as
described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
not yet deserving belief.

--
Rich Ulrich

On 03/08/21 14:51, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts for meaning
> of a couple of similar words, "specious" and "plausible" which once
> were adjectives to hope for.
>
> I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused both words
> in exercises of self-praise. I understand "specious" as looking good
> but being false. "Plausible" is what I might have used in place of
> "credible" as described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
> not yet deserving belief.

Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
but probably false"? It looks to me as if current usage has completely
driven that meaning out.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Peter Moylan:
> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> but probably false"?

I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
definition given is 4a:

# Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
# probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
# spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
--
Mark Brader "When laws are outlawed, only outlaws will have laws."
Toronto, msb@vex.net -- Diane Holt

My text in this article is in the public domain.

On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
> Peter Moylan:
>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> but probably false"?
>
> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
> definition given is 4a:
>
> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.

Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
be skilful at constructing specious arguments. You need a plausible
manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
their life savings.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

Peter Moylan:
>>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> but probably false"?

Mark Brader:
>> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> definition given is 4a:
>>
>># Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>># probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>># spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
Peter Moylan:
> Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> be skilful at constructing specious arguments. You need a plausible
> manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> their life savings.

Which is true whether "plausible" has its "old meaning" or not.
--
Mark Brader | "Every year this part of our job gets easier.
Toronto | Between Facebook, Instagram, and Flickr, people are
msb@vex.net | surveilling *themselves*." --Phil Coulson (Jeffrey Bell)

My text in this article is in the public domain.

In article <IMydneyim-h8FpT8nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>, msb@vex.net
says...
>
> Peter Moylan:
> > Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> > but probably false"?
>
> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> usage.

I think it still does.

Google "he's very plausible"; multiple examples refer to convincing
conmen and liars.

Janet

On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>> Peter Moylan:
>>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> but probably false"?
>>
>> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> definition given is 4a:
>>
>> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>
> Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> be skilful at constructing specious arguments.

Yes.

> You need a plausible
> manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> their life savings.

Bialystock (Zero Mostel) was very good at that.

--
Ken

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 12:24:40 +0100, Janet <nobody@home.com> wrote:

>In article <IMydneyim-h8FpT8nZ2dnUU7-dXNnZ2d@giganews.com>, msb@vex.net
>says...
>>
>> Peter Moylan:
>> > Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> > but probably false"?
>>
>> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> usage.
>
> I think it still does.
>
>Google "he's very plausible"; multiple examples refer to convincing
>conmen and liars.
>

"Plausible" being bad is the meaning that I was assuming
in my post that brought up the word.

But I can see it as being "former" and/or ironical, while someone
says that the "actual" meaning is good.

The conman can be supremely convincing. At what point, or
after what consideration, does the falsity become clear?

- I was surprised a few weeks ago when I learned that
"purple prose" started out as praise of that sort of rhetoric.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:08:21 -0700
Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:

> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
> >> Peter Moylan:
> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
> >>> but probably false"?
> >>
> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
> >> definition given is 4a:
> >>
> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
> >
> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>
I've been trained to allow the second 'double l' to become singular, but am reluctant to agree with the first one; however -
https://grammarist.com/spelling/skilful-skillful/
shows I'm still not a native English speler. </Skitt>

I lament the breeding of Llamas in this country (AIUI Lamas are less prolific; maybe it's only allowed at lamastide).

Gosh; wrong again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lama_(disambiguation)

>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> > You need a plausible
> > manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
> > their life savings.
>
>
> Bialystock (Zero Mostel) was very good at that.
>
>
> --
> Ken

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 8/4/2021 9:48 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:08:21 -0700
> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>> >> Peter Moylan:
>> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>> >>> but probably false"?
>> >>
>> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>> >> definition given is 4a:
>> >>
>> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>> >
>> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
>> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>>
> I've been trained to allow the second 'double l' to become singular, but am reluctant to agree with the first one; however -
> https://grammarist.com/spelling/skilful-skillful/
> shows I'm still not a native English speler. </Skitt>
>
> I lament the breeding of Llamas in this country (AIUI Lamas are less prolific; maybe it's only allowed at lamastide).

As you probably know

The one-L Lama, he's a priest,
the two-L LLama, he's a beast,
and I will bet a silk pajama
there isn't any three-L LLLama.

But you may not know that Nash was wrong. Three-alarmers are common at
fire stations.

--
Ken

On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 10:06:57 -0700, Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/4/2021 9:48 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 08:08:21 -0700
>> Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:
>>> > On 04/08/21 05:33, Mark Brader wrote:
>>> >> Peter Moylan:
>>> >>> Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>>> >>> but probably false"?
>>> >>
>>> >> I hadn't heard that it ever did! The OED Online lists it as "former"
>>> >> usage. To be specific, after three other obsolete senses, the next
>>> >> definition given is 4a:
>>> >>
>>> >> # Of an argument, an idea, a statement, etc.: seeming reasonable,
>>> >> # probable, or truthful; convincing, believable; (formerly)
>>> >> # spec. having a false appearance of reason or veracity; specious.
>>> >
>>> > Here's the way I see it. If you want to be a politician then you need to
>>> > be skilful at constructing specious arguments.
>>>
>> I've been trained to allow the second 'double l' to become singular, but am reluctant to agree with the first one; however -
>> https://grammarist.com/spelling/skilful-skillful/
>> shows I'm still not a native English speler. </Skitt>
>>
>> I lament the breeding of Llamas in this country (AIUI Lamas are less prolific; maybe it's only allowed at lamastide).
>
>
>As you probably know
>
>The one-L Lama, he's a priest,
>the two-L LLama, he's a beast,
>and I will bet a silk pajama
>there isn't any three-L LLLama.

A three-L LLLama would be ambiguous. Is it a priestly beast or a beastly
priest?

>
>But you may not know that Nash was wrong. Three-alarmers are common at
>fire stations.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.english.usage)

* Ken Blake:

> On 8/3/2021 4:54 PM, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> You need a plausible
>> manner if you want to make a career out of cheating old ladies out of
>> their life savings.
>
> Bialystock (Zero Mostel) was very good at that.

Funny that you'd write that on the very day I watched the Muppet Show
with Zero Mostel. It was one of his last appearances; by the time it
aired, he was dead.

I now hear some say that governor Cuomo is the type.

--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that
good men do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke

On Mon, 02 Aug 2021 23:51:53 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>Right now, I am remembering that I have read about shifts
>for meaning of a couple of similar words, "specious" and
>"plausible" which once were adjectives to hope for.
>
>I can imagine that an earlier century of lawyers overused
>both words in exercises of self-praise. I understand
>"specious" as looking good but being false. "Plausible"
>is what I might have used in place of "credible" as
>described above -- not incredible (unbelievable) but
>not yet deserving belief.

Plausible and specious seem to have swapped meanings with prestigious.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 14:35:17 +1100, Peter Moylan
<peter@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>Does plausible still have its old meaning of "superficially convincing,
>but probably false"? It looks to me as if current usage has completely
>driven that meaning out.

I thought that was the current meaning. The old meaning was "deserving
applause".

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

micky:

> My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than per-
> suasive. After someone hear's convincing argumments, he's
> convinced. After persuasive, he's just leaning farther
> toward the side argued. I'll try to bone up on this be-
> fore my next SC oral argument.

In my opinion, persuasion is due more to forceful and exter-
nal influence, whereas conviction grows within oneself, even
if with a gentle, Socratic help. One is persuladed by ap-
peal to emotions, passions, and fears, whereas conviction
comes from reason. A sales speech persuades, a pholosophical
treatice convinces.

I now see that 1913's Webster is more convicing than I:

Conviction respects soley matters of belief or faith;
persuasion respects matters of belief or practice. Con-
viction respects our most important duties; persuasion is
frequently applied to matters of indifference. --Crabb.
Conviction is the result of the [operation of the] under-
standing; persuasion, of the will. Conviction is a neces-
sity of the mind, persuasion an acquiescence of the in-
clination. --C. J. Smith. Persuasion often induces men
to act in opposition to their conviction of duty.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021 12:07:16 +0300, Anton Shepelev
<anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:

>micky:
>
>> My first reaction is that convincing is stronger than per-
>> suasive. After someone hear's convincing argumments, he's
>> convinced. After persuasive, he's just leaning farther
>> toward the side argued. I'll try to bone up on this be-
>> fore my next SC oral argument.
>
>In my opinion, persuasion is due more to forceful and exter-
>nal influence, whereas conviction grows within oneself, even
>if with a gentle, Socratic help. One is persuladed by ap-
>peal to emotions, passions, and fears, whereas conviction
>comes from reason. A sales speech persuades, a pholosophical
>treatice convinces.
>
>I now see that 1913's Webster is more convicing than I:
>
> Conviction respects soley matters of belief or faith;
> persuasion respects matters of belief or practice. Con-
> viction respects our most important duties; persuasion is
> frequently applied to matters of indifference. --Crabb.
> Conviction is the result of the [operation of the] under-
> standing; persuasion, of the will. Conviction is a neces-
> sity of the mind, persuasion an acquiescence of the in-
> clination. --C. J. Smith. Persuasion often induces men
> to act in opposition to their conviction of duty.

Huh! Nice.

"That's persuasive, but I'm not sure I'm convinced." -
suggests degrees, rather than categories.

--
Rich Ulrich

On Mon, 09 Aug 2021 11:38:32 -0400, Rich Ulrich
<rich.ulrich@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Conviction respects soley matters of belief or faith;
>> persuasion respects matters of belief or practice. Con-
>> viction respects our most important duties; persuasion is
>> frequently applied to matters of indifference. --Crabb.
>> Conviction is the result of the [operation of the] under-
>> standing; persuasion, of the will. Conviction is a neces-
>> sity of the mind, persuasion an acquiescence of the in-
>> clination. --C. J. Smith. Persuasion often induces men
>> to act in opposition to their conviction of duty.
>
>
>Huh! Nice.
>
>"That's persuasive, but I'm not sure I'm convinced." -
>suggests degrees, rather than categories.

I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and persuaded him
to wash them.

.... sounds more convincing to me than

I persuaded my son that the dishes needed washing, and convinced him
to wash them.

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

Steve Hayes:

> I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and
> persuaded him to wash them.

Had you convinced him, you should not have to persuade at
all.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]

Remember when Anton Shepelev bragged outrageously? That was Tuesday:
> Steve Hayes:
>
>> I convinced my son that the dishes needed washing, and
>> persuaded him to wash them.
>
> Had you convinced him, you should not have to persuade at
> all.

He can agree that the dishes need washing, but disagree that he should
be the one to the washing. Teenagers do that a lot.

/dps

--
The presence of this syntax results from the fact that SQLite is really
a Tcl extension that has escaped into the wild.
<http://www.sqlite.org/lang_expr.html>