old MSP wants to know what they did wrong
-
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
And you can't just assume all accidents are blatant lies.
No, but obvious lies should never be given the expectation of accident. Lies that have no reason to assume accident and do have obvious personal gain must be considered lies.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
that's not the case in my example - I KNEW what a pizzabox was - it was a 1U rackmount server.
No, you KNEW that someone who had it WRONG thought it was that. Your answer was still wrong. Not intentional, so not lying, but still wrong. Having a bad source doesn't make false information correct.
No, assuming I accept your premise, I know that NOW, I didn't know it then.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
and they are not trying to deceive me about their level of knowledge.
No one said that they were. It is that their SOURCE was deceiving them (or someone) and they are repeating that lie.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
Agreed, it's not lying, but it is from a lie. It's a lie repeated when you didn't know it was a lie. So a lie remains the source of the nickname, which is what keeps it from being possible to consider it a valid new nickname for a 1U server. Your repeating it is not a lie because you had no intent, but now in the future if you said it, obviously it would then be lying.
Only if I accept your premise. If we had some IBM documentation where IBM themselves called the 1U server a pizzabox, would that change your option? Would it then in your eyes qualify as a new use of the term?
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
and they are not trying to deceive me about their level of knowledge.
No one said that they were. It is that their SOURCE was deceiving them (or someone) and they are repeating that lie.
And their SOURCE might be their mentor, or fifty people down the chain. My point is that the origination of it, the point at which 1Us started to be called pizza boxes, is something I've seen a few times and it was blatantly deceit when it was done for the intent to mislead and then people repeated it, a lot. Are those the only originations of it, unlikely, are they the common model? Certainly. It's a bit ridiculous to think otherwise. The term was so well known and started at the time that it started to be misused, in the context of time, it's incredibly obvious the progression of the name.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
Agreed, it's not lying, but it is from a lie. It's a lie repeated when you didn't know it was a lie. So a lie remains the source of the nickname, which is what keeps it from being possible to consider it a valid new nickname for a 1U server. Your repeating it is not a lie because you had no intent, but now in the future if you said it, obviously it would then be lying.
Only if I accept your premise. If we had some IBM documentation where IBM themselves called the 1U server a pizzabox, would that change your option? Would it then in your eyes qualify as a new use of the term?
Not in the slightest. Why do you think that it would? We have documentation of people creating the pizza box lie already, that it is a documented lie doesn't reduce the lie.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
again, this assumes they are trying to lie, which I don't believe that most people when talking about a pizzabox are doing - they honestly believe that a pizzabox is a 1 U rackmount server.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
If I said "I've worked on a pizza box; that means a 1U server, right?"... that is not lying because I am supplying the name AND providing the reference that I am using. It might be the wrong use of the term, but I am providing the underlying definition. There is no deceit.
If they neglected to qualify the statement by verifying the definition that you are meaning, that still does not equal deception. Oversight and misunderstanding do not equal lies.
It does actually. If they know that the term exists, which they know from the context of the sentence alone, and they answer knowing that they answered something without believing it to be true, they lied. If they did so by mistake, that's one thing (got distracted, forgot to provide definition) but you can't assume all blatant lies are just accidents.
again, this assumes they are trying to lie, which I don't believe that most people when talking about a pizzabox are doing - they honestly believe that a pizzabox is a 1 U rackmount server.
Perhaps today, yes. But we are talking about the source of the lie that is now being repeated by those people.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
t they don't know what it is. Then claiming to own one, know how to use one, have worked on one or whatever is clearly lying. In
agreed, that is lying. but me calling it one is not lying, because I do know what it is as previously stated.
Agreed, it's not lying, but it is from a lie. It's a lie repeated when you didn't know it was a lie. So a lie remains the source of the nickname, which is what keeps it from being possible to consider it a valid new nickname for a 1U server. Your repeating it is not a lie because you had no intent, but now in the future if you said it, obviously it would then be lying.
Only if I accept your premise. If we had some IBM documentation where IBM themselves called the 1U server a pizzabox, would that change your option? Would it then in your eyes qualify as a new use of the term?
Not in the slightest. Why do you think that it would? We have documentation of people creating the pizza box lie already, that it is a documented lie doesn't reduce the lie.
Because it's the decided decision that they would MAKE the nickname pizzabox, changing the use from the supposed lie to a real thing.
You never answered my swastika question. Does it mean Nazi or some old religion?
-
@scottalanmiller no one is lying. You are fixated on something that you believe to be the one true thing. But it is only your belief. It is not a fact. Throw all the bull**** at it that you want, but it does not change the fact that you are being a complete f[moderated] ass.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
You never answered my swastika question. Does it mean Nazi or some old religion?
What do you mean old religion? It is a symbol in a current religion in some parts of the world.
-
@JaredBusch said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
You never answered my swastika question. Does it mean Nazi or some old religion?
What do you mean old religion? It is a symbol in a current religion in some parts of the world.
I wasn't sure if that was the case or not JB, I just knew I could be correct in staying old religion, but the point is that a single symbol can be used by different people to mean different things.
And just because Scott ran into some guys who used the term to lie about their experience, doesn't mean that other people using the term to describe something else is wrong or lying.
-
@JaredBusch said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller no one is lying. You are fixated on something that you believe to be the one true thing. But it is only your belief. It is not a fact. Throw all the bull**** at it that you want, but it does not change the fact that you are being a complete f[moderated] ass.
It's just semantics. It's always just semantics.
-
@JaredBusch said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller no one is lying. You are fixated on something that you believe to be the one true thing. But it is only your belief. It is not a fact. Throw all the bull**** at it that you want, but it does not change the fact that you are being a complete f[moderated] ass.
I'm simply pointing out that there is and it's very clear that there has been a standard term. And lots of people have intentionally misused it which has led now to lots of people accidentally misusing it. In no way am I being an ass, pointing out the truth is never being an ass.
-
@art_of_shred said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@JaredBusch said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@scottalanmiller no one is lying. You are fixated on something that you believe to be the one true thing. But it is only your belief. It is not a fact. Throw all the bull**** at it that you want, but it does not change the fact that you are being a complete f[moderated] ass.
It's just semantics. It's always just semantics.
Truth and semantics are really the same thing. Saying something is "just semantics" is a standard trope for downplaying honestly.
-
Name any lie that can't be handled by claiming it is "just semantics". Clinton and what does "is" mean.
-
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
And just because Scott ran into some guys who used the term to lie about their experience, doesn't mean that other people using the term to describe something else is wrong or lying.
On this I agree, hence my previous comment.
-
@JaredBusch said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
You never answered my swastika question. Does it mean Nazi or some old religion?
What do you mean old religion? It is a symbol in a current religion in some parts of the world.
He means a religion that has been around a long time. Which it has. He didn't imply that it was no longer current or around or practiced, only that it wasn't something new.
-
@JaredBusch said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
@Dashrender said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
And just because Scott ran into some guys who used the term to lie about their experience, doesn't mean that other people using the term to describe something else is wrong or lying.
On this I agree, hence my previous comment.
If you read what I wrote instead of jumping to calling me an ass, you'd notice that I've agreed with this since the beginning. I've made it incredibly clear that repeating a lie not knowing that it was a lie is not lying. I never claimed otherwise.
People twist my words and like to believe that I say all kinds of things that I do not then it becomes this constant "Scott always does this" even when I never do. I made it crazy clear that we were discussing the source of the misinformation, not the current use, and how that original misuse was not applicable to a valid reuse of the term because the source was not a redefinition but a lie meant to deceive. Nowhere did I suggest that those repeating it were lying. That was others making that assumption.
-
@scottalanmiller said in old MSP wants to know what they did wrong:
Name any lie that can't be handled by claiming it is "just semantics". Clinton and what does "is" mean.
Well, your entire argument is invalid. Pizza boxes have pizza in them. End of story. If you call a computer a pizza box then you are a liar. I don't care if you have ever eaten pizza or heard of pizza. If you refer to anything other than a box of pizza as a "pizza box" then you are doing it wrong and obviously lying. The person who propagated the use of the term "pizza box" for a computer form factor is the greatest deceiver of all, as I'm sure he had foreknowledge of a box that held pizza.
