|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 9, 2010 16:17:10 GMT -5
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner.
Liberty is a well-armed lamb."
~ Benjamin Franklin
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 15, 2010 13:29:47 GMT -5
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Dec 15, 2010 19:39:57 GMT -5
same applies to Gus's posts all hat no cattle..
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Dec 15, 2010 20:46:22 GMT -5
The moo the merrier.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 16, 2010 0:06:12 GMT -5
Funny, but as usual, you seem to be very much in the minority on your opinion, and it doesn't change the truth of the statement, either way.
Pointless as usual, Mincer Ray.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Dec 16, 2010 6:34:44 GMT -5
Another decrepit appeal to argumentum ad populum. eG, you're a babbling brook of fallacies!
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 6:55:02 GMT -5
Well it *is* funny since, from the looks of this thread, YOU are the one who is "very much in the minority". At any rate, though, truth is not determined by a majority vote. To put it more than charitably, the quote is of questionable veracity, dubious provenance and is very likely to be inauthentic.
|
|
|
Post by gridbug on Dec 16, 2010 9:25:24 GMT -5
Geez! Don't bother Gus with "facts"...
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 16, 2010 10:11:39 GMT -5
The fact is that the quote is overwhelmingly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. Few are questioning the authenticity of the quote. Even fewer care.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 10:23:48 GMT -5
The fact is that the quote is overwhelmingly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. As pointed out in the linked discussion, this attribution is extremely questionable, despite the unqualified claim that it is "overwhelming". I guess I just have a lower tolerance for open lies and flagrant misattributions than some and feel that some readers appreciate having such items pointed out when they are proffered.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 16, 2010 10:37:08 GMT -5
The fact is that the quote is overwhelmingly attributed to Benjamin Franklin. As pointed out in the linked discussion, this attribution is extremely questionable, despite the unqualified claim that it is "overwhelming". I guess I just have a lower tolerance for open lies and flagrant misattributions than some and feel that some readers appreciate having such items pointed out when they are proffered. It's minutiae. When you type the quote into Google you get thousands and thousands of results and going four pages in it is all the quote attributed to Ben Franklin. Pointing this out is a feeble attempt to discredit someone who has used the quote. Whether it was Franklin, Jefferson or Flannery O'Conner who said it doesn't take away from the merit of the quote.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 12:15:15 GMT -5
It's minutiae. When you type the quote into Google you get thousands and thousands of results and going four pages in it is all the quote attributed to Ben Franklin. Pointing this out is a feeble attempt to discredit someone who has used the quote. Whether it was Franklin, Jefferson or Flannery O'Conner who said it doesn't take away from the merit of the quote. The merit of the quote is a wholly separate matter, and trying to pass it off as the words of an esteemed founding father is a dishonest tactic that can easily lead the less-informed reader to the wrong conclusion. I am infusing the conversation with relevant information regarding the provenance of the quote that is designed to allow the reader to assess the merit of the statement within the proper context and for what it is - a quote that is not credibly attributable to an otherwise esteemed source. It reminds me of a quote I once saw: "Information is the natural ally of the critical thinker." - Ronald Reagan I am taking a cue from the Gipper and providing information so readers can make informed decisions about what they believe.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 16, 2010 12:37:38 GMT -5
Relevant information like claiming to know more than the Russians about their only history and saying that Putin doesn't know what he's talking about when he calls Iran Russia's ally?
Mincer Ray vs. thousands of thousands of people including many legitimate reference sources = relevant.
Got it.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 12:42:06 GMT -5
Relevant information like claiming to know more than the Russians about their only history and saying that Putin doesn't know what he's talking about when he calls Iran Russia's ally? Mincer Ray vs. thousands of thousands of people including many legitimate reference sources = relevant. Got it. ? ? ?
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 16, 2010 13:52:21 GMT -5
It's minutiae. When you type the quote into Google you get thousands and thousands of results and going four pages in it is all the quote attributed to Ben Franklin. Pointing this out is a feeble attempt to discredit someone who has used the quote. Whether it was Franklin, Jefferson or Flannery O'Conner who said it doesn't take away from the merit of the quote. The merit of the quote is a wholly separate matter, and trying to pass it off as the words of an esteemed founding father is a dishonest tactic that can easily lead the less-informed reader to the wrong conclusion. Are you accusing El Gusano of a dishonest tactic? Are you asserting that the quote was not penned by Franklin? Then I would assume that you would have corrected the quote by including the phrase that was left off. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
~ Benjamin Franklin Did you not catch that? Are you paraphrasing that quote?
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 13:56:42 GMT -5
Are you accusing El Gusano of a dishonest tactic? Are you asserting that the quote was not penned by Franklin? I am saying that the authenticity of the quote is in very much in dispute. I caught it, but it doesn't help strengthen or weaken the case for authenticity.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 16, 2010 14:09:17 GMT -5
Are you accusing El Gusano of a dishonest tactic? Are you asserting that the quote was not penned by Franklin? I am saying that the authenticity of the quote is in very much in dispute. You found one forum where the authenticity was questioned. The forum you are basing this on is just a bunch of average Joes discussing the quote. Some of those average Joes question the attribution of the quote to Franklin. Hundreds of thousands of websites, according to Google, attribute the quote to Franklin. So I have to ask, what's your point? Due to the obscurity of the one forum questioning the quote being attributed to Franklin I wonder if you have been aware of the quote and the discussion on this one forum all along or do you do an intense fact check on everyone who posts a quote? Is there an agenda here? I caught it, but it doesn't help strengthen or weaken the case for authenticity. So your concern isn't for the accuracy, only the authenticity? But you didn't answer my question. Are you paraphrasing the quote you attributed to Regan? I sure can't find it with Google worded as you worded it.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Dec 16, 2010 14:13:16 GMT -5
He's confusing two different posters as he usually confounds factoids. He's re roasted chestnuts are RE: his confusing the notion of a people with that of a nation, even tho his "facts" are wrong on both counts-The Kievian Rus were not Russian in either sense; read history or ask Ukrainians. he completely confuses Putin's ALLEGED BUT NOT CITED colloquial usage of "ally" with the specifically defined and legal term of ally as in alliance. If any of you missed the original post "Question about Iran and Russi" read it all and you'll have an appreciation of eG's inability to maintain a consistent focus, his plastic use of "definitions" which he changes willy-nilly to suit his purposes, and his inability to understand that the rules of written English have consequences, not the least of which are the legitimacy of assuming implications and making inferences based on what is written. Invariably, when he is held to account for what he has written (and "said" by any standard English reading-see Harbrace) he becomes petulant, accuses the reader of having a problem with comprehension, and begins calling readers "lying dirtbags" when they interpret his writing in standard English. He is a poster child for the failure of American education.
References: The Early Slavs P.M. Barford Borderland A. Reid (history of Ukraine) The Jews of Khazaria K.A. Brook (includes extensive, detailed history of Ukraine and Rus incursions)
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Dec 16, 2010 14:15:22 GMT -5
#17 was in response to #s 12 & 13.
|
|
|
Post by el Gusano on Dec 16, 2010 14:35:27 GMT -5
And at that time, my only question was, had the Russians or the people who inhabited that land ever been at peace with Iran.
At which point, a scurrilous attack was mounted by the usual suspects who have no agenda but to destroy any discussion or debate, and it was declared that the attacker knew more than the Russians, which had nothing to do with the discussion.
Just as here.
A great quote.
With thousands of online references, and many, many sound reference sources, but with nothing productive to add, a scurrilous attack ensues, by the usual suspects, one of whom has been banned from this forum and several others repeatedly for this oafish behavior, and the attacks have nothing to do with the subject matter at hand, in any way, shape or form.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 15:24:03 GMT -5
. Hundreds of thousands of websites, according to Google, attribute the quote to Franklin. I don't find "the number of websites making a claim" persuasive evidence of authenticity. Googling "Elvis is alive" brings over 53,000 hits, and I am thoroughly unconvinced that the King is anything but dead. I've explained my motivation fully. I have concern for both but chose quite arbitrarily to focus on the authenticity in my comments. If someone would like to take up the issue of accuracy, I would think that they are free to do so, and I would be happy to comment on that as well. On the Reagan quote I chose to follow what appears to be the accepted convention around here - to focus on accuracy rather than authenticity.
|
|
|
Post by Justin Thyme on Dec 16, 2010 15:55:15 GMT -5
But you didn't answer my question. Are you paraphrasing the quote you attributed to Regan? On the Reagan quote I chose to follow what appears to be the accepted convention around here - to focus on accuracy rather than authenticity. But the quote returns no hits regardless of the attribution. So should the attribution be "pompey?" I have no problem with you fabricating quotes; a quote has to start somewhere and its validity lies in its truth. Where the problem comes into play with a quote being misattributed is when the author of the quote is being used as part of the context. El Gusano just provided the quote stand alone with no commentary. Yule Brenner could have been the source of the quote and it would still be just as valid. You, however, stated that you were "taking a cue from the Gipper and providing information so readers can make informed decisions about what they believe. " You also stated: The merit of the quote is a wholly separate matter, and trying to pass it off as the words of an esteemed founding father is a dishonest tactic that can easily lead the less-informed reader to the wrong conclusion. I am infusing the conversation with relevant information regarding the provenance of the quote that is designed to allow the reader to assess the merit of the statement within the proper context and for what it is - a quote that is not credibly attributable to an otherwise esteemed source. But El Gusano's quote, whether misattributed or not, was offered with no commentary, to stand on its own merit regardless of who the source was. Your quote: "Information is the natural ally of the critical thinker." - Ronald Reagan was offered in support of your assertion that "trying to pass it off as the words of an esteemed founding father is a dishonest tactic." El Gusano offers a quote that's easily found on thousands and thousands of websites to be taken on its own merit. You offer a quote attributed to Ronald Regan that can't be found by Google anywhere yet you offer it as supporting documentation for your motivation to correct a misattributed quote in a manner that disparaged and cast aspersions on another forum member. This is why I'm questioning your motivation.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Dec 16, 2010 16:05:12 GMT -5
It's ironic that a lefty, using a common liberal tactic (attack the messenger rather than inteliigently debate the message) quotes a fairly conservative source. Of course, the quote is apocryphal, which is another leftist tactic: make up, misquote, or just lie to try and look wise.
|
|
pompey
Senior Forumite
No Oppressive Titles Allowed
Posts: 2,589
|
Post by pompey on Dec 16, 2010 16:14:54 GMT -5
Yule Brenner could have been the source of the quote and it would still be just as valid. The issue is not the validity of the quote. It is the authenticity as the words of Ben Franklin, which is very much in question. Yes, and I am pointing out that, the quote's merit nothwithstanding, there is a serious question as to its authenticity as the actual words of Ben Franklin.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Dec 16, 2010 16:22:11 GMT -5
So what? Aren't the words or the message worth anything unless a famous person stated them? If that's the case, why are we talking to each other? I'm certainly not famous, and I don't recognize your moniker from any recent marquee.
|
|
|
Post by ssmynkint on Dec 16, 2010 17:01:20 GMT -5
RE: 3 19 NO, that was NOT the question you asked. REread what you wrote. Common English clearly would understand your question as referring to nations, not the "people" who did not yet exist as self-identifiers. And then you blather on confounding "peace" with alliance/ally and bring in pseudo-biblical mumbo-jumbo. And YOU were the one who initiated smarmy, condescending attacks , not because of the facts I presented, but because of the "tone". And if you accept that a "Russian" per se is an expert of ethnology and the history of his/her people beyond academic scholarship, then you are delusional. Scurrilous? YOUR ad hominem attacks, including repeatedly calling posters 'lying dirtbags" is scurrilous, especially when the issue is your incoherent attempts to write in English.
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Dec 16, 2010 17:34:03 GMT -5
Even after 13,278 posts..You just ain't trying hard enough.
|
|
|
Post by LimitedRecourse on Dec 16, 2010 17:43:13 GMT -5
I have no aspirations to fame.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2010 18:47:18 GMT -5
*yawn*
|
|
Scarlet&Gray
Senior Forumite
Mr. Ohio
In our honor defend we will fight to the end
Posts: 2,902
|
Post by Scarlet&Gray on Dec 16, 2010 21:05:11 GMT -5
That's good, I'm afraid you'd be spitting in the wind trying to tackle that goal.
|
|