Skip to main content

quote:
I say, "What is fact is truth."

<<< okay now juxtapose that and reconcile that with your other statement >>>

What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't.

How is it that you who claim to have Knowledge cannot UNDERSTAND?

You are hung up on the use of words here and nothing else. Because you use or define the terms involved a certain way you handicap yourself from understanding what Maya is trying to communicate.

And actually, she is saying a whole lot more than what you seem capable though her statement does incorporate your finite position.
You're just the leading candidate for the STUCK ON STUPID AWARD because of you can't intuit what someone else means because they don't phrase things the way you do. If that's a learning disability of yours then I apoligize but it is your responsibility before you take issue with someone's statement to understand what they mean by understand the terms they use in the way they use them and NOT you.

I have explained exactly what her statement meant long ago but that went right over your head like most things seem to.

Using your statement I will illustrate how you are saying something very similar to Maya...
TELL ME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS OR NOT:
    "some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't"... AND[Those kind of facts] CAN OBSCURE TRUTH!
Also... I will direct you to reveiw my November 04, 2003 09:42 AM post for my interpretation of what Maya means. Perhaps, if you want to take issue with her statement tell me how what I said there is problematic if at all.

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
[QUOTE]I say, _"What is fact is truth." _

<<< okay now juxtapose that and reconcile that with your other statement >>>

_What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't._

How is it that you who claim to have Knowledge cannot UNDERSTAND?

I'm trying. I thought I did.

You are hung up on the use of words here and nothing else. Because you use or define the terms involved a certain way you handicap yourself from understanding what Maya is trying to communicate.

I thought that was what she intended. She typically does not have a problem communicating. That proficiency is why I offered that the quote might be part of a larger context.

And actually, she is saying a whole lot more than what you seem capable though her statement does incorporate your finite position.
You're just the leading candidate for the STUCK ON STUPID AWARD because of you can't intuit what someone else means because they don't phrase things the way you do. If that's a learning disability of yours then I apoligize but it is your responsibility before you take issue with someone's statement to understand what they mean by understand the terms they use in the way they use them and NOT you.

I may indeed have some disability at work. It's starting to feel like it. But the words she used didn't seem complicated. I thought I understood all of them in fact. I still do. If therre is a code involved I would appreciate help.

I have explained exactly what her statement meant long ago but that went right over your head like most things seem to.

WHOA!!! YOU explained EXACTLLY what her stetement meant?? You know the code?? It sure did go over my head. I thought you were arguing with your source citation.

Using your statement I will illustrate how you are saying something very similar to Maya...
TELL ME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS OR NOT:_"some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't"... AND_[Those kind of facts] _CAN OBSCURE TRUTH!_Also... I will direct you to reveiw my November 04, 2003 09:42 AM post for my interpretation of what Maya means. Perhaps, if you want to take issue with her statement tell me how what I said there is problematic if at all.

I didn't find a 9:42 post for Nov. 4. I did find a 7:42 post. It is:
________________________________________________
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
I see no conflict or contradiction in Maya Angelou's statement.

FACTS are bits of info. that when collected can make a particular statement about a subject. (Notice the PLURAL form of the word.)

Certainly, the particular set of facts someone chooses to collect and the particular statement they have decided to make by selectings those particular facts can indeed obscure what is the actual TRUTH of the matter by focusing on issues that may not be at the heart of the matter and instead appealing to other sensibilities or prejudices.

FACTS.... and the TRUTH are not one in the same.
_ TRUTH is the proper intepretation and weighing of the "FACTS". _
________________________________________________

Dr. Angelou said there is a difference between truth and facts.

Nmaginate says facts ant the truth are not one and the same.

Jim Chester says facts are truth because they are facts, but a "statement-of-fact" may be true or false.

I will go on to say that because a statement-of-facr can be true or false, it may or may not obscure the truth.

PEACE

Jim Chester

________________________________________________________________
_ There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth. _- Maya Angelou




You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Mr. Chester....

You ever stop to think that the other people that responded here at any length... differed from you. And you do IN FACT have some kind of disability working here. Because, as is your tendency, you continue to dwell on semantics and not the substance of the matter.

You can continue to be STUCK ON STUPID and HOOKED ON PHONICS but what I said about understanding what a person says and the CORE MEANING which you still haven't addressed, JUST LIKE YOU!!... is exactly the point!

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou

quote:
Dr. Angelou said there is a difference between truth and facts.

Nmaginate says facts and the truth are not one and the same.

DAMNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like I'm saying the same thing Maya said almost verbatim!! There is a difference - i.e. they are not the same.
quote:
Jim Chester says facts are truth because they are facts

What the HELL kind of logic is that?
I'm trying not to call you a DUMB*** but that's what you are being!!

STUCK ON STUPID!! HOOKED ON PHONICS!!! aka JWC!!

Why in the world does Maya Angelou has to use the exact words STATEMENT OF FACTS to get across her intended meaning?? Why?? Because that's the only way PEA-BRAINED JWC can understand it??

It's not that damn hard!!

YOU GOT THE RIGHT POST... I can't account for whatever time zone you live in and whatever appears on my side (I think it's off anyway...)

But LEARN HOW TO ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS!
quote:
TELL ME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS OR NOT:

_"some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't"... AND [Those kind of facts] CAN OBSCURE TRUTH.

Of course, no answer was given.... SHOWS YOUR INTERGRITY and APTITUDE!
quote:


TRUTH and FACT(s) are RELATED but NOT equivalent - i.e. they are not the same.
    FACT
    something that has actual existence;
    an actual occurrence

    TRUTH
    the state of being the case
    the body of real things, events, and facts
    the body of true statements and propositions
It is important since TRUTH is defined as "the body... of FACTS" that we know what body of Facts we're talking about and if they are actually relevant to whatever we are trying to determine the TRUTH about... Go back to my Iraq War example.

And........ FOR THE LAST TIME!!!!!!!!! Mad Big Grin
What is the difference in the CORE MEANING between your statment and Maya's:
quote:
What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't.
NOT THE DAMN TERMS USED the MEANING, Chester!!!

You said that some "FACTS" just aren't true/fact..
She said [some] FACTS [aren't true because they] do not *clearly express* the TRUTH.

Again, why did you break from using your supposedly obligatory STATEMENT OF FACT in your statement above. What happen to "FACTS are TRUTH because they are facts (they can't be false)..." Why didn't you say this about your statement:
"I can see if I said Statement of facts are not always facts."

Don't worry... I don't expect an honest answer from you. You have proven yourself unwilling and/or incapable of doing that. It's sooooooooooo funny. You quote everything I say and pretend to respond to portions at a time but skip right over everything that challenges you and exposes your ineptitude/contradictions...

It is too damn laughable for you to say that Maya Angelou is "having problems communicating".... I won't even honor you with a insult directed at your arrogant-ignorance concerning that!!
FACTS are bits of info. that when collected can make a particular statement about a subject. (Notice the PLURAL form of the word.)

Certainly, the particular set of facts someone chooses to collect and the particular statement they have decided to make by selectings those particular facts can indeed ***obscure*** what is the actual TRUTH of the matter by focusing on issues that may not be at the heart of the matter and instead appeal to other sensibilities or prejudices [if not be entirely unrelated or poorly related to the issue at hand]
    I guess you're telling me you completely disregarded the largest portion of my post of which I was calling my INTERPRETATION of Maya's statement in order to focus solely on what any person with READING COMPREHENSION skills would know to be an additional statement of mine and not an interpretarion of her's per se.
Do you know what and interpretation is?

Are you going to pretend that only the last line you already took issue with is the only thing in that post? (As you can see I could easily expand on it and it seems to be in accordance with the textbook definition of TRUTH as a body of facts - i.e. a set of facts or info.)

THANKS AGAIN FOR SHOWING the measure of your INTEGRITY AND APTITUDE!!! (A lack that is...)

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou

quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
Mr. Chester....

You ever stop to think that the other people that responded here at any length... differed from you. And you do IN FACT have some kind of disability working here. Because, as is your tendency, you continue to dwell on semantics and not the substance of the matter.

To those others who responded in this thread, I thought responses were a "common pot" from which we drew. I still do. If I haven't addressed a point please call me on it.

You can continue to be STUCK ON STUPID and HOOKED ON PHONICS but what I said about understanding what a person says and the CORE MEANING which you still haven't addressed, JUST LIKE YOU!!... is exactly the point!

I do tend to get stuck, particularly on the truth. I am reluctant, however, to reconstruct the intent of others. If the intent, is not apparent in the words of others, I rely on past performance for guidance. I have nothing in the past performance of Maya Angelou to make me believe she does not know the inherent character of truth. I have to believe the quote of reference is a part of a larger context.

________________________________________________________________
_ There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth. _- Maya Angelou




PEACE

Jim Chester

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
[QUOTE]Dr. Angelou said there is a difference between truth and facts.

Nmaginate says facts and the truth are not one and the same.

DAMNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like I'm saying the same thing Maya said almost verbatim!! There is a difference - i.e. they are not the same.

That settles the first possible issue. I did understand what you said. Great. Second: I try not to "guess" at what someone means, if I don't have to. If I do, I try to use past demonstration of the person as guidance. If no need to guess. I also saw nothing to lead to the conclusion Dr. Angelou did not understand truth. I therefore concludes the quote of reference might be of a larger context.

quote:
Jim Chester says facts are truth because they are facts

What the HELL kind of logic is that?
I'm trying not to call you a DUMB*** but that's what you are being!!

STUCK ON STUPID!! HOOKED ON PHONICS!!! aka JWC!!

I hoped this would get your attention. It is another way of saying, "What it is, is what it is." A fact is truth. Clearly, if the fact is not truth, it is not a fact. Stupid? Maybe. Phonetics? No. By the way, you can call me "dumb". Name-calling seems to be something you need. I'm always open to helping someone be what they need to be.

Why in the world does Maya Angelou has to use the exact words STATEMENT OF FACTS to get across her intended meaning?? Why?? Because that's the only way PEA-BRAINED JWC can understand it??

I don't know. Maybe. Maybe Dr. Angelou knew I would be there. But I don't really believe that is what she did. I think she said what she meant. I also believe that a preamble had been established for an obviously untrue statement-of-fact. To believe she did not do that is expectation far below her reputation.

It's not that damn hard!!

YOU GOT THE RIGHT POST... I can't account for whatever time zone you live in and whatever appears on my side (I think it's off anyway...)

But LEARN HOW TO ANSWER MY DIRECT QUESTIONS!
quote:
TELL ME IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THIS OR NOT:

_"some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't"... AND [Those kind of facts] CAN OBSCURE TRUTH.

Of course, no answer was given.... SHOWS YOUR INTERGRITY and APTITUDE!
quote:


TRUTH and FACT(s) are RELATED but NOT equivalent - i.e. they are not the same._FACT_
something that has actual existence;
an actual occurrence

The title of the original post is a question, Your answer apparently is "No." I don't have a problem with "No."

_TRUTH_
the state of being the case
the body of real things, events, and facts
the body of true statements and propositions It is important since TRUTH is defined as "the body... of FACTS" that we know what body of Facts we're talking about and if they are actually relevant to whatever we are trying to determine the TRUTH about... Go back to my Iraq War example.

Interestingly enough, you are not allowing this consideraton to Dr. Angelou. I have said repeatedly that she would not make such a statement-of-fact without a preamble. You talk past that only to make the point that statements-of-fact can be untrue. strange.

And........ FOR THE LAST TIME!!!!!!!!! Mad Big Grin
What is the difference in the CORE MEANING between your statment and Maya's:
quote:
_What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't. _
NOT THE DAMN TERMS USED the MEANING, Chester!!!

You said that some "FACTS" just aren't true/fact..

I did? I hope I said (some) statements-of-fact aren't true.

She said [some] FACTS [aren't true because they] do not *clearly express* the TRUTH.

She did? Clearly, that is your opinion. Your interpretation of what she meant. Not what she said.

Again, why did you break from using your supposedly obligatory STATEMENT OF FACT in your statement above. What happen to "FACTS are TRUTH because they are facts (they can't be false)..." Why didn't you say this about your statement:
"I can see if I said Statement of facts are not always facts."

I don't know. Maybe I was trying to deceive, dissuade, misdirect. Being of the duplicitous character you have identified, could it be anything else. Like common use of the language. Maybe??

Don't worry... I don't expect an honest answer from you. You have proven yourself unwilling and/or incapable of doing that. It's sooooooooooo funny. You quote everything I say and pretend to respond to portions at a time but skip right over everything that challenges you and exposes your ineptitude/contradictions...

You caught me!!! What can I say? Oh, no don't answer that!!!

It is too damn laughable for you to say that Maya Angelou is "having problems communicating".... I won't even honor you with a insult directed at your arrogant-ignorance concerning that!![/QUOTE

Got me again!! I could have sworn I said the opposite. Goes to show ya.

You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
_FACTS are bits of info. that when collected can make a particular statement about a subject. (Notice the PLURAL form of the word.)

Certainly, the particular set of facts someone chooses to collect and the particular statement they have decided to make by selectings those particular facts can indeed ***obscure*** what is the actual TRUTH of the matter by focusing on issues that may not be at the heart of the matter and instead appeal to other sensibilities or prejudices [if not be entirely unrelated or poorly related to the issue at hand]_I guess you're telling me you completely disregarded the largest portion of my post of which I was calling my INTERPRETATION of Maya's statement in order to focus solely on what any person with READING COMPREHENSION skills would know to be an additional statement of mine and not an interpretarion of her's per se.Do you know what and interpretation is?

Are you going to pretend that only the last line you already took issue with is the only thing in that post? (As you can see I could easily expand on it and it seems to be in accordance with the textbook definition of TRUTH as a body of facts - i.e. a set of facts or info.)

THANKS AGAIN FOR SHOWING the measure of your INTEGRITY AND APTITUDE!!! (A lack that is...)

I've tried to talk about this very simple, and very short quotation of Dr. Angelou in short simple terms. You insist there is a "greater" interpretaion that must be applied to "fully" understand what she is saying.

Your call it "greater interpretation". I call it "greater context." However you "slice it", Dr Angelou's first sentence is inherently false. I say there must be a preable. You say it requires "greater interpretation" by the reader.

I'll accept that.

Your are very welcome, by the way. I do try to show my true self.


________________________________________________________________
_ There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth. _- Maya Angelou




You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
Your disingenuousness is incredible.
Your words are in bold. You can HOPE you said whatever you want but I quoted exactly what you said and showed how you contradicted you own DUMB*ss logic.
quote:
_What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't. _
quote:
You said that some "FACTS" just aren't true/fact..
She said [some] FACTS [aren't true because they] do not *clearly express* - i.e. OBSCURE - the TRUTH.
quote:
I did? I hope I said (some) statements-of-fact aren't true.


You statement:
_What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't. _ ...

Came from >> THIS POSTS <<

Clearly you failed to use the term, Statement of Fact, in your post that I will quote again for your reference along with other relevant things you said.
    _What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't. _
Note, again, you did not say:
_What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, [Statements of fact], aren't. _
quote:
I would not be concerned if the statement were: "A statement of fact can obscure the truth." Obviously, a statement of fact can be a bald-faced lie. But that's not what she said.

So, do you call the validity of a statement by such a prestigeous person into question? Clearly, the anser is, "Yes."

Hmmmm..... That seems to contradict both your insistence that the term STATEMENT OF FACT be used to represent any "facts" that can be "untrue" (because YOUR DUMB*ss can't fathom that certain facts regardless of how true they are, are not applicable to every situation people try to use them in) and what you're trying to pretend now:
    "...I think she said what she meant. I also believe that a preamble had been established for an obviously untrue statement-of-fact. To believe she did not do that is expectation far below her reputation."
You seemed to act like you could care less about her reputation at first since you could "call the validity of a statement by such a prestigeous person into question"

BTW, the problem is that you did fly of the handle with saying that she was more or less wrong without allowing for or considering what the greater context must have been. You in fact stated you disapproval from an abstract position. CONTEXT be damned!!

To acknowledge that there must be a greater [unknown] context and still construct your opposition to her statement without it is irresponsible and just a ploy to act like you were being considerate. "Well, I said there must be a greater context... But she's wrong on the terms"... That's like Indian-giving.
quote:
What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't. The contradiction of such misidentification with the truth can lead to Angelou's conclusion. Without seeing the greater context, it indeed be what she was saying.
There you just said the context really wasn't important. You went on and formed your opinion that there was some inherent "contradiction" and "misidentification with the truth" in her statement.

You could not responsibly form such an opinion or rather wouldn't if you were unaware of the context. Being responsible, you would have either speculated as to what the context must have been (simple READING COMPREHENSION helps with that) or you would not have dared to say the statement was in error because you couldn't possibly say that you knew for certain that her working definition of the terms are the same as yours.

Therein is where the problem lies. You want to impose your narrow view and definitions on her statement which, IMO, state what you ultimately said and went even beyond that.

MAYA ANGELOU is wayyyyyyyy more articulate than you are so how you can fix your mouth to say that her thoughts need to be called into question when you don't know and apparently can't imagine what the overall context is shows your pathetic little attempt to hairsplit and sound as if you are making an intelligent point when you are not.
quote:
I thought that was what she intended. She typically does not have a problem communicating. That proficiency is why I offered that the quote might be part of a larger context.
Oh but I guess this time she did fail to effectively communicate, huh? Chester??

I think you're the only person who has a problem understanding what she meant or had any reason to "question" what her quote. What's bad is that you tried to formulate an argument insisting that she was wrong when you acknowledge that you are, apparently, completely ignorant about what she meant.

Let me emphasize that... YOU are completely IGNORANT of what she meant. (That hasn't been a problem for anyone else.)

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou
quote:
Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
"Let me emphasize that... YOU are completely IGNORANT of what she meant. (That hasn't been a problem for anyone else.)" --- Nmaginate

Precisely!!

NOW you get it.

So that means that you argument with others, namely me, is futile. You are admitting that you don't know what she meant but have the audacity to haggle over her meaning (which you don't understand)...

All I can do is laugh.... You say the stupidest things...

How are you going to argue with me when I say I'm pretty sure about what she meant and even gave example(s) and a explanation about her meaning??

You did not simply take the position that you did not know what she meant, you took issue with her meaning saying that is was problematic and that it didn't make sense to you because you had a more accurate definition of the terms that made her meaning contradictory.

WHY MUST YOU LIE all the time - i.e. be completely DISHONEST - and act like you can't understand the truth of your errors?

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou

There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou


quote:
    FACT: Black students display a lower level of scholastic achievement
    than their White counterparts on average.
How is this interpreted? What TRUTH does this tell us about Blacks & Education - the subject of this statement?

Does that mean that Black students are "dumber" than White students or are less motivated to achieve? Aren't those the literal translations of that FACT one would take?

Or... is there an overall TRUTH that that FACT "obscures" about Black scholastic achievement?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12682-2002Nov19?language=printer
Does that or does that not illustrate what Maya Angelou spoke about and does it not show how a "FACT" about a subject is not necessarily the "TRUTH" about a subject?

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
_There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth._ - Maya Angelou


quote:
_FACT:_ Black students display a lower level of scholastic achievement
than their White counterparts on average.
How is this interpreted? What TRUTH does this tell us about Blacks & Education - the subject of this statement?

Okay, I'll play. I does not tell us anything about "blacks and education." It is a statement-of-fact that may, or may not be true.

Does that mean that Black students are "dumber" than White students or are less motivated to achieve?

No.

Aren't those the literal translations of that FACT one would take?

No. The only translation that is valid is the determination of being true, or false.

Or... is there an overall TRUTH that that FACT "obscures" about Black scholastic achievement?

It may be a fact that "Black students achieve a lower level of scholastic achievement."

What do you want the statement to be applied to? All "black" students? All "white" students. I am thoroughly convinced that SOME "black" students achieve a lower acheievement level than SOME "white" students. I am also convinced that ALL "black" students do not achieve at a lower achievement level that ALL "white" students. There are several variations of this comparison in between.

But, on the face of it, the only thing that matters is whether the statement is true or false.

I think it is dubious.


PEACE

Jim Chester





http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12682-2002Nov19?language=printer
Does that or does that not illustrate what Maya Angelou spoke about and does it not show how a "FACT" about a subject is not necessarily the "TRUTH" about a subject?

Only for the very, very stupid.

I see the point you are trying to make. I see the point Dr. Angelou made.

The question of the thread was: Are facts truth? Is truth fact?

Consider: Jim Chester made true statements about the interpretations of Nmaginate on truth.

What do you think? True or False?


PEACE

Jim Chester

________________________________________________________________
_ There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth. _- Maya Angelou



You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on November 10, 2003 at 09:32 AM.]
quote:
But, on the face of it, the only thing that matters is whether the statement is true or false.

I think it is dubious.


READING COMPREHENSION.

What part of ON AVERAGE?? DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND??
quote:
FACT: Black students display a lower level of scholastic achievement
than their White counterparts on average.


Certainly, ALL YOUR "SOME" this and "SOME" that is DUMB because you failed to COMPREHEND!!!
quote:
The question of the thread was: Are facts truth? Is truth fact?


fro AND???

I do recall a certain impetus and premise that read like: "But is she right?"

Most certainly she is... and she is definitely far more CREDIBLE and has far more INTEGRITY than you have.
quote:
She typically does not have a problem communicating. - JWC

Dumb*ss statements like that should get you the Forums Electric Chair cause you need a charge up your *ss for having the audacity to act like YOU of all people can stipulate as to whether she can communicate clearly.

Your *ss needs a good zappin' for that BS!! Eek

Again, there was NO CONFLICT or CONTRADICTION in her statement - i.e. my tag...

LEARN HOW TO READ!!!
quote:
I think it is dubious.


That's exactly the point, JWC!!! Mere recitation of FACTS as others have suggested (and I think ThaWatcher's exact words) "CAN BE MANIPULATED" to promote a... dare I say DUBIOUS agenda.

THEREFORE, FACTS can OBSCURE the TRUTH!!
Because as you so keenly noted how that FACT is applied and towards what purpose it is cited makes a whole lot of difference... A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE!!

BTW, THE STATEMENT/FACT is true... "ON AVERAGE"... otherwise there would be no such thing as an "achievement gap"...

READING IS!!!!!!!!!! FUN-DA-MENTAL!!! Big Grin

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou

quote:
It may be a fact that "Black students achieve a lower level of scholastic achievement."

What do you want the statement to be applied to? All "black" students? All "white" students. I am thoroughly convinced that SOME "black" students achieve a lower acheievement level than SOME "white" students. I am also convinced that ALL "black" students do not achieve at a lower achievement level that ALL "white" students. There are several variations of this comparison in between.
    Black-White Achievement Gap Persists in All Grades and Reappears Quickly

  • A government study of elementary and secondary students finds that blacks have lower math and reading scores than whites at every grade level, even among blacks who had the same test scores as whites just a year or two earlier.
  • This leaves blacks at a disadvantage as they prepare for college or the job market.


    http://www.ncrel.org/gap/library/text/blackwhite.htm


For Rehash Only: (Well, actually to show where I've already covered this point...)
    FACTS are bits of info. that when collected can make a particular statement about a subject.

    Certainly, the particular set of facts someone chooses to collect and the particular statement they have decided to make by selectings those particular facts can indeed obscure what is the actual TRUTH of the matter by focusing on issues that may not be at the heart of the matter and instead appealing to other sensibilities or prejudices.

    FACTS.... and the TRUTH are not one in the same.
    TRUTH is the proper intepretation and weighing of the "FACTS".
My point for this entire thread is that TRUTH is all about the proper APPLICATION of "FACTS".

And, unlike you I believe ALL facts are true in terms of exactly what they represent. If a "fact" can be false or untrue it ceases to be a FACT. But, of course, you would puke up some nonsense (even contradicting yourself) stating things to the contrary.
quote:
    What I am saying is that some things called, or thought to be, facts, aren't.

    "A statement of fact can obscure the truth." Obviously, a statement of fact can be a bald-faced lie.
    - JWC



...Mr. Chester, a statement of fact cannot be false. If a statement is false, it can't be a statement of fact. A false statement can be a statement of information presented as fact, but if the statement is false, by definition it is not a statement of fact. A fact is a piece of info that is the case. - VOX

Not that I've been schooled or take a course or even been self-given an "A" in this, but the common sense understanding of the phrase STATEMENT OF FACT is that it is used to indicate that the statement is merely a stand alone bit of information that is undeniably true and not tainted by a particular opinion. When a person says that's a "statement of fact" it means that it is true and they are not offering it as their opinion whether they tend to react favorable to the fact expressed or not.

quote:
The team colors of the Los Angeles Lakers are red and black.

That...is a "statement-of-fact."
Eek Eek Eek [... WHAT?? ...] Eek Eek Eek

It may be sad. It may be true. It may be false. But it remains a "statement-of-fact".


Frown Oh ye of little understanding...
(Read VOX's quote above and re-reference my source...)
quote:
]Suppose you went to the science fiction movie your friend spoke of and discovered the aliens actually had blue rather than green skin.
(Perhaps your friend is color-blind.)

You would then call his statement an error, ***not a fact***. - aka broscream NOT a Statement Of Fact Dumb*ss!!!


______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou


[This message was edited by Nmaginate on November 10, 2003 at 05:16 PM.]


[This message was edited by Nmaginate on November 10, 2003 at 05:29 PM.]
Well our, respective, understanding of fact and truth has certainly been settled.

I offered: Consider: Jim Chester made true statements about the interpretations of Nmaginate on truth.

I offered: "A statement of fact can obscure the truth." Obviously, a statement of fact can be a bald-faced lie._- JWC

You cited a conclusion from another post:

_...Mr. Chester, a statement of fact cannot be false. If a statement is false, it can't be a statement of fact. A false statement can be a statement of information presented as fact, but if the statement is false, by definition it is not a statement of fact. A fact is a piece of info that is the case._ - VOX

You concluded, in part:
"...When a person says that's a "statement of fact" it means that it is true and they are not offering it as their opinion whether they tend to react favorable to the fact expressed or not."

The poster is wrong ( not to speak of VOX in the "third person" but to avoid complication)

A "statement-of-fact" is a grammatical structure. It has NOTHING to do with truth. Example, AGAIN!!! The moon is made of green cheese. That is a statement of fact. It is also a bald-faced lie.

Nmaginate do you REALLY, REALLY, think it means that it is true and I am not offering it as my opinion whether they (whoever "they" is) tend to react favorable to the fact expressed or not."

If you truly believe this, I have no rebuttal.

YOU WIN. YOU ARE THE BEST. I GIVE IN. I AM WITHOUT DEFENSE.

PEACE

Jim Chester


You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

[This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on November 11, 2003 at 03:32 AM.]
Mr. Chester,

What is a grammatical structure? What does grammar has to do with the phraseology of Statement Of Fact?

Does the term "FACT" loses its meaning in that then?

Everybody else... but you is WRONG huh, Chester?

You have no way of supporting your claims. I've supplied an independent source that contradicts your ridiculous (as usual) reasoning for this. Yet, you still choose to defend a defenseless position.

SHOW ME SOME PROOF about your Statement of Fact THEORY....
(Just so you know... I really not expecting you to. That would be a BIG break from your norm.)

______________________________________________________________
There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
Facts can obscure truth.
- Maya Angelou

ENGLISH 101
quote:
...Finally, consider a statements like The sun rises in the east. That statement seems to have all the necessary traits of an effective thesis: it is a declarative statement, it is specific, and it could be supported by all sorts of data. As a thesis it has all the traits one needs, except one "” it's dull.

That's because the statement is a "statement of fact" as Adler (222) would call it, and statements of facts do not make interesting theses.

*Mortimer Adler divides knowledge into three classes*:
statements of facts,
statements about facts,
and statements about statements (Adler 222-224).

If a thesis manages to express only
a statement of fact, the paper will be nothing more than a report or a recitation of facts. This is fine if all you want to do is to report the facts you have collected. However, if the writer wants a paper that is more than a report, the writer must start with a thesis that is more than a statement of fact. In other words, an interesting thesis is relatively high in Adler's orders of knowledge.

For example, consider what we could predicate of a subject like democracy.
  • 1. Statements of fact: Democracy is a form of government.
  • 2. Statements about facts: Democracy is the best form of government for the newly emerging nations of Europe and Asia.
  • 3. Statements about statements: Democracy's inherent superiority as a form of government lead to its victory over Marxist regimes in the former Soviet bloc.



Let's look at another example of what a THESIS STATEMENT is to see what it can tell us about the idea of a Statement Of Fact:
quote:
A thesis statement is...

  • ...a statement that express the main point of your paper in the form of an assertion.

  • ...a sentence in which you state a claim (attitude/opinion) about your subject.
      A thesis statement is not...
  • ...a sentence stating your topic.

  • ...a statement of fact or truth. (A thesis statement should be debatable!) - i.e. a Statement Of FACT is NOT debatable!!

    ***********************************************

    a thesis cannot be a simple statement of fact, because a statement of fact is simply that -- a statement -- and does not require persuasive argument. - i.e. a "statement" that is NOT debatable.

    A statement of thesis is not:
    a statement of fact. If something is a fact, then it has already been proved and need not be argued again.



  • For sources on any of the above Cut & Paste the main phrases and Google, My Brother! Big Grin

    ______________________________________________________________
    There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
    Facts can obscure truth.
    - Maya Angelou


    [This message was edited by Nmaginate on November 11, 2003 at 07:32 AM.]
    Nmaginate Source:

    "That's because the statement is a _"statement of fact"_ as Adler (222) would call it, and statements of facts do not make interesting theses."


    Dull or bright. True or false. I (It) remains a statement-of-fact.

    I agree with your source. Do you agree with your source?

    Thanks. Great research.

    PEACE

    Jim Chester

    You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.

    [This message was edited by James Wesley Chester on November 12, 2003 at 04:46 AM.]
    quote:
    Originally posted by Nmaginate:
    Do you agree that your classification of what is a Statement of Fact has been WRONG!!?

    I do! I always have!

    ________________________________________________________________
    _ There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
    Facts can obscure truth. _- Maya Angelou




    I know you do, and that you always have.

    I don't believe my definition is wrong. I know my understanding of what is a statement-of-fact is correct.

    It is important to recognize the difference. My understanding of exchanging information,particularly information on which further decision has to be made, that it be clear what is fact and what is opinion. This is beyond what is true, and what is false.

    A statement-of-fact may, or may not, be true.

    An absolute fact must be absolute truth. Absolute truth must be absolute fact.

    This is the beginning to making sound decision.

    In any csee, that is how I try to do it.

    PEACE

    Jim Chester

    You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
    Yada... yada...

    Everything here says you are WRONG!!

    A so-called Statement Of Fact that is "untrue" is, consequently, a Statement In Error...

    YOU ARE WRONG AS USUAL!!!

    Thanks... and TRY AGAIN!!

    ______________________________________________________________
    There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
    Facts can obscure truth.
    - Maya Angelou

    quote:
    Originally posted by Vox:
    I should stay out of this thread because it's so hairsplitting and obtuse...

    I agree the reasoning is abstract. I don't think the concept is obtuse.

    But Mr. Chester, a statement of fact cannot be false. If a statement is false, it can't be a statement of fact. A false statement can be a statement of information presented as fact, but if the statement is false, by definition it is not a statement of fact. A fact is a piece of info that is the case.

    Statement-of-fact is a grammatical structure. Statement-of-fact: The moon is made of green cheese. Question: Is it true? Please not that "The moon is not made of green cheese." is not a statement-of-fact. Yet it is true. The validity of the assertion made in a statement-of-fact is immaterial to the grammatical construction.

    As for Maya Angelou's quote, I don't know if I agree with her that there's a "world of difference" between truth and fact, but there's a world of difference between my true love for Maya and the fact that I will never have her in my life... (ahh, if I were only 40 years older...)

    Ask. You may be surprised.

    But back on a now-defunct website called the Black World Today, there was a poster who had this pathetic habit of trying to use $50 words that he didn't understand how to use. His big thing was exposing "veracious xenophobes;" what he meant was "people who were truly racist (or xenophobic). But you can't use "veracious" to mean "true" in that context. Although technically they were synonyms, they don't have the exact same meaning, or the exact same uses.

    AND xenophobia does not address race.

    What I learned from this guys horrendous posts was that there are relatively few true synonyms. This is my long-winded way of saying that "truth" and "fact" are likely different concepts just on that basis.

    Let's hope not. Truth means not untruth. Not false. And that is a fact.

    Although I could think about it more, at first blush it feels to me like truth is deeper than fact. Truth is a quality; fact is a thing.


    God said, "I am the truth..." That's a fact. Does your rationale therefore conclude that God is a quality. And that God said it is a thing?

    Now I would agree there is something "obtuse" about that rationale.

    PEACE

    Jim Chester

    You are who you say you are. Your children are who you say you are.
    Why are you rambling on directing belated responses to posters who have long since sought to avoid your madness?

    The FACT is, while your question was perhaps worthy of discussion (in a curious way), your rationale and ridiculously rigid position on the... ridiculous, not to mention your usual contradictions and lame-brained assertions (which are kind of like one-in-the-same), just hasn't shown any sign of intelligent thought backed by the appropriate rational thought composition on your behalf.

    That is to say that you spoil any spark of brilliance you may have by saying some of anything (as you have - A Statement of "Fact" is...? ) and sticking to it! - i.e. your seriously flawed train-of-logic that, consequently, breaks down your whole thought apparatus!! Big Grin

    ______________________________________________________________
    There's a world of difference between truth and facts.
    Facts can obscure truth.
    - Maya Angelou

    Add Reply

    Post
    ×
    ×
    ×
    ×
    Link copied to your clipboard.
    ×