When a person is deliberately misleading, they purposely with intent lead a person to believe something other than the truth.

A person who is ambiguous and vague simply hides the truth or chooses not to reveal it, and lets the other person draw any conclusion they choose.

Thats the difference.

How can one hide the truth without being deliberately misleading?

Easy.

A witness to a crime who does not come forward is simply not forthcoming with his truth. He is not misleading anyone.

A witness who comes forward and gives false or misleading testimony that diverts away from the truth or implies something other than the truth is "deliberately misleading."

Concealing the truth is not misleading. It is simply not revealing.

To mislead someone is to lead them into the direction of an untruth.
To withhold information is not the same thing.

I've been a private investigator long enough to know the difference.

If a person withholds information, and the investigator comes to a wrong conclusion, it is the investigator who is responsible for the wrong conclusion.

If a person implies or hints in the wrong direction or implicates a suspected person and causes the investigator to draw a wrong conclusion, then the investigator has been "deliberately mislead."

The irony of the ambiguous claim...


How does that distinction apply to your perception of my ambiguous word usage on an internet forum as being veiled? Veiled does not mean holding back. It presupposes deliberate deception... deliberately hiding the truth under some form of 'cover', as it were.

Is that what you meant?

What you hide is the truth of your agenda. You hide your point. (If you even have one.) If you don't have a point I am perplexed. Your agenda and purpose are unclear.

Although you have not deliberately mislead anyone towards a wrong conclusion, you have left them guessing what you might mean and you have left them to draw their own conclusions (about what you mean) because you do not reveal your purpose or your point clearly enough. It, being ambiguous, is not clear. It lays a trap for wrong conclusions. When wrong conclusions occur you make accusations that someone has assumed something or made a wrong assessment of your agenda or of you. The problem is, your ambiguity is the cause of that.

Your posts are traps. Your agenda is veiled. You lay in wait for an opportunity to pounce upon anyone who is not in line with where you are attempting to guide the conversation. What you seem to attempt to do, is to guide the conversation towards the point you want to make. It rarely gets there because misunderstanding and accusations permeate the thread.

I have often asked you to just speak plainly and make your point clear. But you would rather play a game of circular logic.

You interpret 'veiled' as meaning "deliberate deception." To me, deliberate deception is closer to a lie. One who knows, but does not tell is not a liar. One who knows but does not tell is not deliberately trying to deceive. Doesn't deception mean to Lie or to deliberately lead a person to believe an untruth?

Is withholding the truth now to be considered a lie? Is a veiled agenda now to be considered a lie?

Ambiguity is an invitation to wrong conclusions and misunderstanding. If wrong conclusions disturb you, you should not choose an ambiguous dialog as it creates the very thing you are complaining about.

All of that from ambiguity alone?

That clearly depends on your own interpretation.

It's subjective.

Ambiguity is the leading cause. You seem to need a detailed explanation as you keep asking. How many times must I explain and in how many different ways?

There is a saying here in Ireland, I don't know whether you know it:

What you say,

I hear,

and you mean might 3 completely different things.



Taking this into account, I can make out of every single post what I want it to be.

This has been my point all along.

I think it has been Creative's point too. He knows that impressions and conclusions and assessments originate with the perceiver and their own past experience. This is why communication is so difficult.

You might be on to something there.

Depends on who was to judge which thoughts are 'groundless'.

If I could go and complain about a thought being 'groundless' whenever it doesn't agree with my thinking, would there be any posts at all?

Or perhaps there would be one person talking to themselves?

During our lives we have learned so much, and experienced a lot and processed a lot of information. It is sometimes difficult to self analyze every scrap of it and know where our own grounds for our beliefs and impressions are.

I believe once you can understand yourself first, it will help in understanding others. Too many times we expect that others are exactly the same as we are. There are differences. If we are human we have a lot in common that we can relate to each other with, but we should not expect that everyone is going to see things the same way we see them. Each point of view is unique. Each person has their own treasure of information and experience to share.

I have said before that the universe is energy and information and that matter is stored information, or memory. Each object, each living thing, every person is a treasure of information. This is especially true of humans. All things have a degree of consciousness that flows through it. All memory and information can be accessed by conscious intelligence or it is not memory.

Everything's subjective
it's the object of this thread
Knowingness is random
and determinism's dead

Invisible is highly seen
although her thoughts are nude
Contradictions so obscene
Certainty gets screwed

A quantum random universe
indeterminate in principle
Slaying all objective thought
for uncertainty's invincible

All we have are mere opinions
based upon our lives
Must we hold each other hostage
using logic as our knives?

Intuition rules the world
feelings hold the truth
To claim to know objectively
would be nothing but uncouth

Life is but a dream
of surreal imagination
Anything we think we know
is but a mere approximation

We share our thoughts subjectively
without demanding resolution
For in a quantum random world
it's the only true solution

I think I can agree with that to a point.

But if I think differently about memory, does that make memory as you understand it void?

I dunno. I can't remember.

I keep visualizing my naked thoughts hopping through threads, and so will Lee as soon as she gets up in her morning. She'll enjoy it.

No. Memory is information stored. Stored information can be accessed.

Information stored is like the information on your computer. It just sits there, waiting to be accessed by the user.

In this reality, Consciousness is the user. In your brain, you are the user. You are consciousness.

Not all memory is useful information, just like the stuff on your computer. There is some information on my computer I don't personally use or access, but it is still there. It can probably be accessed by a computer geek, but it might be useless information to him too.

Memory or data that cannot be accessed is corrupted. A defrag of the computer organizes useful and accessible data and ignores or gets rid of corrupted data.

Now, since you are using the computer as a comparison, if someone empties the cache, and clears the private data, will the memory you are talking about still be there?

Probably.

In a computer, it is still there until it is overwritten.

In a person, I don't know.