Just the facts Ma'am

"If you don't feed them, or if you ban them, they will go away"

Hmmmmm.......Speaking of facts, I wonder if there's anyone like this guy in real life??
(really gives you the creeps!)...Know what I mean?

There are very few true facts in life.Is the earth round no it's pear shaped or egg shaped.The best you can say is it's roundish.Most facts come from peoples mouths and that makes them opinions.If you gather enough opinions and they're good ones you will be able to form your own.That's the best we can do in life.If you start your search with an agenda you can never form a good opinion.You have to start with an open mind,which most of us can't do.
DON

If we have:

1. A letter where Frank states he's going to shoot Joe.
2. Documentation for him buying the gun that ultimately kills Joe.
3. Video of him stating hes going to kill Joe.
4. Frank standing next to Joe with a smoking gun.
5. ...... and Joe is dead.
6. There's plenty of witnesses to all these events and even Frank doesn't refute them.
   

By themselves we might be able to argue that some of those things aren't facts. When you put them altogether though they support each other as being facts which ultimately leads to the fact that Frank killed Joe.

Devil505 wrote:

Richard S. wrote:Why should I beleive this is true?

Believe WHAT is true?

1. That the document itself is genuine?
2. It accurately discloses the exact words that were allegedly spoken?
a. Will/can the speaker verify that those were indeed his words?
b. Who reported it?
c. Who transcribed it?
d. How can we be sure it hasn't been altered to change it's intent?

Just remember Ronald Reagan's famous admonition: "Trust....but verify!"

Based on these tests and considering our purposes in this forum, why wouldn't media accounts and government references, for the most part suffice? Do they not verify sufficiently?

While I rail against the liberal press, their bias is revealed more in what they don't say about a subject than what they do say. What they do say is reliably a fact for most intents and purposes. Their business is to journalize facts. My contention is that they don't journalize those favorable to Republicans as much as those detrimental to Republicans.

Fact recording is also the business of government agencies and I believe that for most intents and purposes they can also be trusted.

Don't let years of law enforcement cynicism cloud your civilian judgement. Not everyone is a liar. As a retailer, I have to remind myself from time to time that not everyone is a thief!

I haven't read every post on this thread. I don't pay a lot of attention to politics but I thought I'd mention something that I've noticed. Rush Limbaghhhhh, every day he takes up hours of air time and has millions of listeners and he CERTAINLY does not speak fact. He speaks a mixture of fact and opinion. He also does not even suggest where a listener might go to find out how to seperate the two. I used to listen to him quite a bit, then finally one day I realized... and this is big....and true.... He speaks his opinion as fact. If you do not do the research to know the difference, suddenly you're speaking his opinion as it were fact. He makes million of $....why? Many people either believe it's the truth or they think he's fun.

Most forums that are specific to a goal.... coal, signs, CNC machinery, art.... every one has a seperate area for stuff that is not related to that forum. We're humans, we like to chat. If it's a bandwidth issue, a cost issue, OK, I suggest make a rule: No posts if not related to coal. Other than that I vote for live & let live. If someone doesn't want to read political stuff, they learn real fast to skip those posts.

Rush Limbaugh makes no bones about the fact that he is, first and foremost, an entertainer.

As for speaking of fact and opinion: We all hold certain information until new evidence confirms or denies that information as fact. Speaking your opinion, as your personal logical conclusion from your "known" facts, is certainly what humans rightly do. However, there certainly is room for error. When others do it in exchange, that conversation, or argument, is how we reconcile differing information and "facts". Without a bit of slack and tolerance for our counterparties, there can only be war.

Richard S. wrote:If we have:

1. A letter where Frank states he's going to shoot Joe.
2. Documentation for him buying the gun that ultimately kills Joe.
3. Video of him stating hes going to kill Joe.
4. Frank standing next to Joe with a smoking gun.
5. ...... and Joe is dead.
6. There's plenty of witnesses to all these events and even Frank doesn't refute them.
   

By themselves we might be able to argue that some of those things aren't facts. When you put them altogether though they support each other as being facts which ultimately leads to the fact that Frank killed Joe.

Richard even all that could be manufactured,and there are some places on earth where that happens.With that being said I would still like to know more about the gun.the letter.who took the video and who are the witnesses.I'm a tough sell !

Sounds like suicide to me.