Onstar....a spy???? please comment

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Sure it is. All perspective has a basis in truth, otherwise it's no longer perspective and becomes imagination. However, the extent to which these original facts are distorted and stretched varies....a lot.

You're interchanging truth with fact. Those are two different things.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Berean

You're interchanging truth with fact. Those are two different things.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

something that actually exists; reality; truth:Your fears have no basis in fact.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

When you make it so simple, it even sounds like a good thing.

Sadly, getting the allowable treatment isn't the same as getting cured.

He who can afford to tell his perspective more often wins, right?

I am puzzled why people think either side lies? A lie is a statement or indicatin of something that you know to false or untrue. I don't believe either side lies. They just give their opinions and perspectives. The problem is when we disagree with someones opinion some people call that a lie.

Just because some Mustang guys come in here and say the Mustang is a better car does not make them a liar any more than us going there to say the Camaro is better. It's perspective and opinion. And I think the problem we are discussing is that what we perceive as news is laced with (or coated with) opinions and perspecitve to the point where it is no longer news.

And by the way if you consider Glenn Beck, O'reilly or any of those shows "news" you may be part of the problem. Those guys are entertainers plain and simple.

What was the study, may have been a joke, but the percentage of people that go their news from the Dailey Show was sadly quite high. Meaning more than 0%. LOL

[Captain Awesome]

http://www2.onstar.com/web/portal/on...o=011-2616-574

AddOn-Star!

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by Number 3

He who can afford to tell his perspective more often wins, right?

I think you have to look at more than just what people are telling you what to think. If there was some type of proposal that someone says is great, you can always look at history and see if that idea was ever tried before. You can ask yourself if it didn't work the previous 10 times it was tried, what makes them say that it will work the 11th time around? It may cause you to think that the person is either really naive, or they simply are lying for some reason.

You can be fairly certain that they are lying, but there's maybe a 20% chance they are naive and a 1% chance they are mentally imparied (drugs, alcohol, illness, etc.)

And by the way if you consider Glenn Beck, O'reilly or any of those shows "news" you may be part of the problem. Those guys are entertainers plain and simple.

Unfortunately, there's been a few recent studies that have shown that some of those entertainers have done a more thorough job of investigative journalism than some of the established "pure news" media.

The lines are blurring, because now some editorial programs are better at investigating "news" than the news shows and the news shows seem to have more editorial content than actual news.


The real answer is to watch a little of everything with your mind open and critical thinking mode engaged.

[Number 3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

I think you have to look at more than just what people are telling you what to think. If there was some type of proposal that someone says is great, you can always look at history and see if that idea was ever tried before. You can ask yourself if it didn't work the previous 10 times it was tried, what makes them say that it will work the 11th time around? It may cause you to think that the person is either really naive, or they simply are lying for some reason.

You can be fairly certain that they are lying, but there's maybe a 20% chance they are naive and a 1% chance they are mentally imparied (drugs, alcohol, illness, etc.)



Unfortunately, there's been a few recent studies that have shown that some of those entertainers have done a more thorough job of investigative journalism than some of the established "pure news" media.

The lines are blurring, because now some editorial programs are better at investigating "news" than the news shows and the news shows seem to have more editorial content than actual news.


The real answer is to watch a little of everything with your mind open and critical thinking mode engaged.

I'm sorry, I'm not getting it. Lying says they are telling you something they know not to be true or worse did or didn't happen. My point is that if you don't believe the perspective is true doesn't make it a lie. Fox News, the whipping boy for this topic, hasn't made up a story that I'm aware of. Many don't like the perspective or the story but that doesn't make it a lie.

Fundamentally, your argument is every Mustang fan that comes on Camaro5 to say they believe the Mustang is a better car is lying, because we here know that isn't true. It's only our opinion. Neither is lying.

So why so many insist that this is a lie rather than a perspective and opinion.

Maybe I could understand your point if you could give me an example where a lie was told. Where a news agency reported that someone said or did something they didn't do and they knew it wasn't true and reported it anyway.

[el ess A]

Originally Posted by Number 3

Maybe I could understand your point if you could give me an example where a lie was told. Where a news agency reported that someone said or did something they didn't do and they knew it wasn't true and reported it anyway.

George Bush's Air Force "letter" on CBS. They even said they KNEW it was bogus...kinda the main reason Dan Rather is now retired.

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Number 3

I'm sorry, I'm not getting it. Lying says they are telling you something they know not to be true or worse did or didn't happen. My point is that if you don't believe the perspective is true doesn't make it a lie. Fox News, the whipping boy for this topic, hasn't made up a story that I'm aware of. Many don't like the perspective or the story but that doesn't make it a lie.

Fundamentally, your argument is every Mustang fan that comes on Camaro5 to say they believe the Mustang is a better car is lying, because we here know that isn't true. It's only our opinion. Neither is lying.

So why so many insist that this is a lie rather than a perspective and opinion.

Maybe I could understand your point if you could give me an example where a lie was told. Where a news agency reported that someone said or did something they didn't do and they knew it wasn't true and reported it anyway.

Even though some of you aren't getting my point. The comment above is an example of how fact and truth are different.

Facts are HP and 0-60 times. "Truth" is "my car is better than yours."

Where fact and truth intersect would be to answer a question like: "Which car has the best 0-60 time?"

[Mr. Wyndham]

My philosophy classes ended years ago.......right?

[Berean]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

My philosophy classes ended years ago.......right?

It never ends.

[fast34me]

Part of the problem was that OnStar also reserved the right to not only track customer driving patterns — including miles driven, routes, vehicle speed and even whether occupants wore seatbelts — but to sell that information to third parties that could include marketers, along with government and police agencies. It didn’t help much when OnStar insisted it would aggregate such personal information and not provide identifying details.
Following OnStar’s Tuesday announcement, Coons and Franken jointly called it “the right thing to do.” But the move might not satisfy all critics. Company spokesman Stefan Cross told msnbc.com that while OnStar so far has “not sold data to any third parties” it has not given up that right or option for active subscribers.

[Rogue Leader]

Originally Posted by fast34me

Part of the problem was that OnStar also reserved the right to not only track customer driving patterns — including miles driven, routes, vehicle speed and even whether occupants wore seatbelts — but to sell that information to third parties that could include marketers, along with government and police agencies. It didn’t help much when OnStar insisted it would aggregate such personal information and not provide identifying details.
Following OnStar’s Tuesday announcement, Coons and Franken jointly called it “the right thing to do.” But the move might not satisfy all critics. Company spokesman Stefan Cross told msnbc.com that while OnStar so far has “not sold data to any third parties” it has not given up that right or option for active subscribers.

WHY did you have to bring up this crapstorm again.

You read an old article. OnStar cancelled this program due to public backlash.

[Megatron]

Big Brother is watching you!!!!