Paul Williams takes Mijares spot in top 10 p4p.

[kg0208]

Originally Posted by Jay

compare someone like amsterdam to pacdbest... there's no competition to which is the more well balanced poster - amsterdam is more than prepared to admit and discuss his fighters short comings, pacdbest would more likely commit suicide than find any form of fault with pacman....

Pacquiao has NO FLAWS!!!

[Jay]

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Of course! But this is to do with altering reality in persuit of agenda, not the relative strengths or weaknesses of the broadcasters and recievers. I agree, in essence, that each person is responsible for their own interprettion of the facts but it's not really relevnent here, you know? And what is more, reactions need not be passive or even reasonable IF the broadcaster is persuing an agenda that is unreasonable - or in their opinion is unreasonable.

Why isn't it relavant - it is everything. What is irrelevant is, if there is an agenda or not. The broadcaster is either convinced that he projects the truth, or lies, and it is up to the receiver to evaluate the information given. If he had a weak opinion, strong opinon or none, it is up to him to valuate if the information given is the only information he will take into consideration. I don't advice anyone to do this though. I don't really see relevance in agendas - hidden or not.

But if someone is working "in congnito" they must understand if they are recieved with suspicion. Seeming agendas and secretive responses will generally be met with hostility across the board, for obvious reasons.

Sure. If you take the risk of having a hidden agenda, you can only hope it doesn't cause too much interference in the information you are trying to pass on. But that is the risk the broadcaster was willing to take.

But you could understand someone being suspicious?

Of course - I am always suspicious, even if the broadcaster has no history of passing on false information. Being suspicious is only helpful in not shallowing everything fed to you. Overly suspicious is not good, because there is a chance that you cast aside everything fed to you without looking at it. You can't evolve, if you only keep your own train of thoughts.

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by kg0208

Pacquiao has NO FLAWS!!!

Finally you make some sense

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by DanePugilist

Why isn't it relavant - it is everything. What is irrelevant is, if there is an agenda or not. The broadcaster is either convinced that he projects the truth, or lies, and it is up to the receiver to evaluate the information given.

I agree, but we are most concerned with the reaction of the reciever.

Would you agree that the reaction of a reciever as "hostile" is reasonable if he believes he is being lied to? Generally, but more particularly if he is consistantly being lied to, or misled, paricular to the bias of the broadcaster?

[DanePugilist]

Originally Posted by McGrain

I agree, but we are most concerned with the reaction of the reciever.

Would you agree that the reaction of a reciever as "hostile" is reasonable if he believes he is being lied to? Generally, but more particularly if he is consistantly being lied to, or misled, paricular to the bias of the broadcaster?

Depends on who you are, or who the receiver is, but I am "concerned" with the reaction of most people. Some I just know how they will respond, because they aren't open to what I have to say. But always hope I can get surprised by the response. I try in turn to be open to others, even if they have a long history of being hostile towards me. Being hostile does little good in debate. I am passionate, and I do get hostile, but I realize that it the debate is as good as over, once that happens.

Yes, that is reasonable, if being lied to. Being mislead does not, whether or not I have a good relationship with them or not. However, jumping the gun, and assuming lies without contemplation is ill advised. On the other end, since I try not to lie, I don't like to be accused of being a liar, nor do I think anyone else likes this.

Being constantly the receiving end of lies, gives me some sort of satisfaction, because it shows that people need to divert from truths in search to convince me, and since I am able to spot it(else I wouldn't know), makes me think that they have a very weak perception - not only of me, but of the truth. And I can then try to enlighten them. I don't think ill of people if they have a warped perception of things. People believe what they want to. I can only try to show them my truth, and if they don't like it - well, then its their "loss", no need to bash them for having their own opinons. Selfcreated or not.

Since I accept I don't know everything, and I can learn from even the biggest idiot, I take every persons words into account. If not instantly, then eventually.

PS Since I trust my judgment on almost everything, I think I am pretty safe in my pursuit of enlightenment.

[McGrain]

Originally Posted by DanePugilist

Since I accept I don't know everything, and I can learn from even the biggest idiot, I take every persons words into account.

[acb_]

Originally Posted by McGrain

Maybe, but I don't think "agenda" and "truth" are compatible in any way. And aren't we all here to get at the truth? The degree to which your agenda controls your truth will establish how much value your version of the truth might be worth, however well worked that version is.

Know what I mean? I think "agenda" is a word born from politics.

Agreed.