Jobs

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

[juju]

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.

[LordSludge]

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

[LordSludge]

How about this one?


"Lies make baby Jesus cry!"

[juju]

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

[LordSludge]

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

Todd Flanders??

[juju]

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

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by spinningfetus
The point that I was trying to make is in the culture of mass media one now has the tools to lie to millions of people at a time.

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"? :-)

[two people could give differect answers about a shared event and still both be answering truthfully

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.

[LordSludge]

<...snip...>
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.

[Nic Name]

people have an amazing, even sickening tendency to believe their own bullshit

Do you really believe that?

[Nic Name]

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:

"Video cameras record some of the ingress and egress from the main entrance and the rear entrance,"

[spinningfetus]

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

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.

Originally posted by MaggieL

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

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

[spinningfetus]

Originally posted by LordSludge

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.

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?

[jaguar]

I've created a 4 page monster!!!!

What else could it be driven by? public service?

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.

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

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

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.

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?

Makatashi Heavy Industries (MHI) is a Japanese based weapons manufacturer started 15 years ago. MHI specialise in light to medium personal defence pistols and submachine guns. Their proven reliability under pressure and low price has made them a favourite of organised crime groups and street gangs the world over. Realising the potential brand name value they wish to follow in the footsteps of companies such as Echo Unlimited and Fubu and mass-sell street-gang culture.

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

[MaggieL]

Originally posted by jaguar

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

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".

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

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.