Well I've told lies before but I generally (too fucking much probably to be honest - fucking username) tell the truth as I see it. You have proof that Nigel Farrage told lies/a lie with anything like the veracity of evidential support backing up the theory of evolution?

Keep It Real wrote:Well I've told lies before but I generally (too fucking much probably to be honest - fucking username) tell the truth as I see it. You have proof that Nigel Farrage told lies/a lie with anything like the veracity of evidential support backing up the theory of evolution?

I don't understand the relevance of the question.

You said Nigel Farrage is a liar. I am asking for evidence proving that point with anything like the veracity of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

proof

If DarwinsBulldog were still here he'd probably tick me off for saying that...it's all about falsifiabiality...go read Popper lol

Keep It Real wrote:

ronmcd wrote:Hmm. I'm absolutely with Carl here. What's the complaint? It's correct, no?

Oh I wasn't complaining - I was absolutely chuffed - spot on.

Apologies I assumed you were annoyed not pleased.

So what was it that made you think that carl? Cos I said fucking I think.....but I fucking love fish and chips....jamest ticked me off about my language the other day, and it was ambiguous again.....why can't it be like star trek with a universal translator.

Keep It Real wrote:You said Nigel Farrage is a liar. I am asking for evidence proving that point with anything like the veracity of the evidence supporting the theory of evolution.

Yeah, I got that bit. I still don't know why you're asking me.

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:Gosh, I didn't know they had editorial guidelines against statements of fact.

You probably did, actually.

Example?

"Nigel Farage is a liar". That's factual, but presumably it would be contrary to the BBC's editorial guidelines to say as much. Further examples should be easy enough to think up.

Wouldn't that run contrary to guidelines because it's attacking a person? Plus, I'd think it's a bit too wibbly to really be considered a fact -- how many lies do you have to tell before you are factually a liar?

I honestly don't know anything about BBC's editorial guidelines, so apologies if my questions seem dumb. I assume there's some part of it aimed at maintaining civility, and I don't think pointing out the fact that human intelligence is observably the result of evolution rather than the mandate of an unevidenced deity is uncivil.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

You probably did, actually.

Example?

"Nigel Farage is a liar". That's factual, but presumably it would be contrary to the BBC's editorial guidelines to say as much. Further examples should be easy enough to think up.

Wouldn't that run contrary to guidelines because it's attacking a person? Plus, I'd think it's a bit too wibbly to really be considered a fact -- how many lies do you have to tell before you are factually a liar?

I honestly don't know anything about BBC's editorial guidelines, so apologies if my questions seem dumb. I assume there's some part of it aimed at maintaining civility, and I don't think pointing out the fact that human intelligence is observably the result of evolution rather than the mandate of an unevidenced deity is uncivil.

I’m pretty sure it’s isn’t so ‘wibbly’ it couldn’t be considered factual, but substitute your preferred example as you want: it’s fairly clear that the BBC cannot say certain things, even if they are facts, whether that’s because stating the fact could be construed as ‘attacking a person’, or for whatever other reason.

In the case of the example of the OP, the claim sounds like it would breach some rules I expect they have on religious impartiality, rather than on politeness! But I’ll look into it before making any complaint, of course.

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Example?

"Nigel Farage is a liar". That's factual, but presumably it would be contrary to the BBC's editorial guidelines to say as much. Further examples should be easy enough to think up.

Wouldn't that run contrary to guidelines because it's attacking a person? Plus, I'd think it's a bit too wibbly to really be considered a fact -- how many lies do you have to tell before you are factually a liar?

I honestly don't know anything about BBC's editorial guidelines, so apologies if my questions seem dumb. I assume there's some part of it aimed at maintaining civility, and I don't think pointing out the fact that human intelligence is observably the result of evolution rather than the mandate of an unevidenced deity is uncivil.

I’m pretty sure it’s isn’t so ‘wibbly’ it couldn’t be considered factual, but substitute your preferred example as you want: it’s fairly clear that the BBC cannot say certain things, even if they are facts, whether that’s because stating the fact could be construed as ‘attacking a person’, or for whatever other reason.

I'd like to point out that you still haven't substantiated this claim, your apparent surety that labeling someone a liar is as straightforward as a concrete, demonstrable scientific fact notwithstanding.

In the case of the example of the OP, the claim sounds like it would breach some rules I expect they have on religious impartiality, rather than on politeness! But I’ll look into it before making any complaint, of course.

Let me know if you find whatever rules you think are being breached, I'm still skeptical you'll find anything that says you can't state a demonstrable fact because someone might erroneously perceive it as being "religiously impartial".

I'm lactose intolerant now I think SAM - your username cracks me up - oh the irony - the cream (lol) in the coffee as Christopher Hitchens said IIRC.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Tracer Tong wrote:

"Nigel Farage is a liar". That's factual, but presumably it would be contrary to the BBC's editorial guidelines to say as much. Further examples should be easy enough to think up.

Wouldn't that run contrary to guidelines because it's attacking a person? Plus, I'd think it's a bit too wibbly to really be considered a fact -- how many lies do you have to tell before you are factually a liar?

I honestly don't know anything about BBC's editorial guidelines, so apologies if my questions seem dumb. I assume there's some part of it aimed at maintaining civility, and I don't think pointing out the fact that human intelligence is observably the result of evolution rather than the mandate of an unevidenced deity is uncivil.

I’m pretty sure it’s isn’t so ‘wibbly’ it couldn’t be considered factual, but substitute your preferred example as you want: it’s fairly clear that the BBC cannot say certain things, even if they are facts, whether that’s because stating the fact could be construed as ‘attacking a person’, or for whatever other reason.

I'd like to point out that you still haven't substantiated this claim, your apparent surety that labeling someone a liar is as straightforward as a concrete, demonstrable scientific fact notwithstanding.

Sure I have, though it’s kind of obvious anyway, unless you think the BBC’s editorial guidelines amount only to “don’t say false things”! Besides which, you’ve already agreed that statements “attacking a person” and that don’t ‘maintain civility’ would be disallowed, so substitute whichever factual statement which involves either that you prefer, if you don’t like my example.

I’ve not expressed such a “surety”, of course. I’ve merely said “I’m pretty sure it’s isn’t so ‘wibbly’ it couldn’t be considered factual”.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
Let me know if you find whatever rules you think are being breached, I'm still skeptical you'll find anything that says you can't state a demonstrable fact because someone might erroneously perceive it as being "religiously impartial".

Assuming you meant “religiously partial”, I’m unsure why you would be sceptical. Rules on broader ideological impartiality are just the sort of thing I’d expect from the BBC, and they’re just the sort of thing which puts a limit on what you can, or can’t, say, regardless of its truth value.

Saying something false =/= lying

Saying something you believe is true even if it is not =/= lying

Saying something you know is untrue = lying

Oh this is English 101 thread I stepped into? I thought it was about a religious article 7 months old that someone accidentally put on the front page of the BBC then quickly got taken down? No? Oh ok.

The Beeb do have a small section of their home page for "most read/watched" items which does change rapidly and sometimes does include old articles if someone has been dredging them up. Happens when people go back over old details on an ongoing issue that drags over years sometimes. Perhaps the pertinent article was on that bit when KIR saw it and that's why it's presence was so transient.

Teague wrote:Oh this is English 101 thread I stepped into? I thought it was about a religious article 7 months old that someone accidentally put on the front page of the BBC then quickly got taken down? No? Oh ok.

Doubt it.

monkeyboy wrote:The Beeb do have a small section of their home page for "most read/watched" items which does change rapidly and sometimes does include old articles if someone has been dredging them up. Happens when people go back over old details on an ongoing issue that drags over years sometimes. Perhaps the pertinent article was on that bit when KIR saw it and that's why it's presence was so transient.

I don't think so monkeyboy - the most read list is on the right of the page - and the link I clicked on the home page was a seperat topic roughly in the middle of the page, on the second "sheet of A4" down. Unfortunately I don't have a photographic memory but I thunk that pseudo jelly is stapled to the cupboard.