Sludge - hold CTRL and click the refresh button on your toolbar. You'll force a reload and probably get the 404 image.

If you intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to deceive people, even if your answer is technically true, you're a liar.

Some people intentionally manipulate language in order to deceive people. Even if this isn't officially lying in your book because it's 'technically true', it's still morally wrong, at least in book.

Scale should be taken into account, of course. I wouldn't condemn anyone for stealing cookies.

Ah, sorry bout that; looks like they disallow direct linking to the picture. Hopefully this link will work:
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/ente...ics/rhymes.htm

How about this one?

http://www.thesimpsons.com/bios/imag...eople_todd.gif
"Lies make baby Jesus cry!"

Eh, I don't need an omnipotent deity to tell me that deception is wrong.

Todd Flanders?? ;)

Yes, he is my god. Isn't he yours?

Still, there's nothing *new* about that:...
"Ours is the first age in which many thousands of the best-trained individual minds have made it a full-time business to get inside the collective public mind. To get inside in order to manipulate, exploit, control is the object now. And to generate heat not light is the intention..." Marshall McLuhan in <i>The Mechanical Bride</i>

That paragraph was written <i>fifty-one years ago</i>...does that count as "back in the day"? :-)

Sure they could, and it's a relativistic universe.

But that's a nearly Clintonian quibble. When a tobacco company runs magazine ads depicting doctors telling you how *safe* Brand X smokes are, it's not because of the Heisenberg Principle or because the company is operating in an accelerated frame of reference, or even because they just see things differently from how I do.

They're *lying*...*they* don't actually belive what they're saying.

Probably true, but people have an amazing, even sickening tendency to believe their own bullshit. People believe what they want to believe, however ridiculous.

I would like to point out that the internet provides an alternative conduit of reporting that wasn't available 15 years ago. It's becoming harder and harder to maintain lies with the availability of cheap, global reporting that the internet enables.

Do you really believe that? ;)

I can see Jag as an Aussie spin doctor.

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_543023.html?menu=

My favourite line in the news item is:

No, TV was already around and large circulation mags and newpapers already had national audiences. Also notice he said first age, it was the beginning. What we are seeing now is the maturation of the culture it has borne.

If they don't believe what they're saying then they are lying by the definition that I gave, thanks for the illustration. ;)

In a way the internet actually makes things worse than before because it supplies the perveyors of the lies with the same cop out as the cigarette warning labels gave the tobacco companies for so long; there is a choice, that is true BUT internet is an active tool; you have to do something to get something. That little bit of effort is much more than a large percentage of teh population is willing to put forth for thier information. TV on the otherhand is passive, when you are in a passive mode like that it is much easier to just accept what is said. Since there is a choice the broadcasters now have license*to say whatever they want cause hey people can check if they want. But how many really do?

I've created a 4 page monster!!!!
Small private compaines can be driven by these things, yes. Hell i've run an import company here just to undercut the otehr bastards for the sake of friends with little cash to spare. I'm not saying all private business are, or that all small businesses are, or that all public companes aren't (the concept for a green powerbloc/fund on the stockmarket ain't new) either though.

Prove it. Go on, try. I'm sure they are but that is my point.

Spin doctor ain't my interest, it simple is a little too much of an ethical minefield, i'm more intered in adveriting and brandname development. Which is also an ethical minefield but more fun
;)

Oh man that is walking on thin ice!!! EVERY word has connotations, whether you call a fight a disagreement, a brawl, a battle or a punch-up they all have different connotations depending on which spin you want to put on it - thats not marketing, we learn that in english for crying out loud!


Warch - already but it, fantasic mag ;)
Hell, wanna know what i'm doing for my next graphics folio?

The currant stuff i'm drafting up is a stylised pic of a homie type dode in a hoodie pointing a pistol with the text
.45cal X 30 @ 450FPS - put a sting in your tail

If you and I both know they are, why should I try to prove it? What *is* your point? That they have an excuse? That they can't be *proven* guilty? Once again the lowest common denominator is "what you can get away with".
Now *there's* a distinction without a difference.

"Brandname development", what a choice euphemism.

Originally a *brand* was the trademark that connected a products to the reputation of its maker. The idea that a brand should be "developed" is pure hokum....reputations are things that should be *earned* rather than forged or manufactured though propiganda.