Exactly what lying statistic did you see? You seem to have seen a perfectly accurate sum. The site didn't exactly tell you the /whole/ truth, but it did tell you nothing but the truth.
| [reply] |
Firstly, it was just a question. I noticed something that I was not consciously aware of knowing about, so I asked my question.
friedo's answer was sufficient to satisfy me that it was a deliberate policy rather than a bug, and despite whatever misgivings I might have about 'authorities' that make undeclared, undiscussed and unassailable blanket decisions about what is "significant", I would almost certainly have left it at that.
Until...530750, and I responded in kind.
Don't make too much of the word lies--it is just a paraphrase of the ever popular "lies, damned lies and statistics"--I doubt the machine/site is offended.
In a world that is filling fast with 'nanny state' ideologies, with our cultures becoming ever more litigious, and where 1984 is becoming manifesto for governments, I thought my 'insurance' gag was quite funny.
Bottom line. It's not a bug. Question answered.
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
Lingua non convalesco, consenesco et abolesco. -- Rule 1 has a caveat! -- Who broke the cabal?
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
| [reply] |
where 1984 is becoming manifesto for governmentsYeah, I hear you. I get mysterious downvotes everytime I talk on the telephone, and say something "politically upsetting" about the fat cats. Now what could the mechanism for that be? If I say anything other than "it's coincidence", I get labelled a paranoid schizophrenic. You can't win, except by ignoring it all.
I'm not really a human, but I play one on earth.
flash japh
| [reply] |