TAL BACHMAN RESPONDS TO PRESIDENT KEYES

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Analytics
_Emeritus
Posts: 4231
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm

Post by _Analytics »

Mister Scratch wrote:
Analytics wrote:
Tal Bachman wrote:Analytics -

Yeah, I think you might be right about keeping quiet. That was really well put, thanks.

What do you think I should do if he persists in saying I invented the stuff? Just say, "I've already recounted the meeting as accurately as I can"? Like, what if he comes out and says, "Tal persists in misrepresenting me"?...


I'd just say, "Keyes has brought these concerns to my attention. Apparently, I misunderstood what he said. I think very highly of Keyes and apologize for talking in public about our private conversation."

Just try to have class and diffuse the situation.


But, wouldn't this be tantamount to admitting that he "lied"? Certainly, it would provide a great deal of fuel for apologists....


I don't think so. It's at least hypothetically possible that Tal did in fact misunderstand. Admitting that he may have misunderstood is different than admitting he deliberately lied.

Besides, what's wrong with feigning some humility? Benjamin Franklin claims doing so actually helped him be more convincing. With regards to his goal to be humble, Benjamin Franklin said,

I cannot boast of much success in acquiring the reality of this virtue, but I had a good deal with regard to the appearance of it. I made it a rule to forbear all direct contradiction to the sentiments of others, and all positive assertion of my own. I even forbid myself, agreeably to the old laws of our Junto, the use of every word or expression in the language that imported a fix'd opinion, such as certainly, undoubtedly, etc., and I adopted, instead of them, I conceive, I apprehend, or I imagine a thing to be so or so; or it so appears to me at present. When another asserted something that I thought an error, I deny'd myself the pleasure of contradicting him abruptly, and of showing immediately some absurdity in his proposition; and in answering I began by observing that in certain cases or circumstances his opinion would be right, but in the present case there appear'd or seem'd to me some difference, etc. I soon found the advantage of this change in my manner; the conversations I engag'd in went on more pleasantly. The modest way in which I propos'd my opinions procur'd them a readier reception and less contradiction; I had less mortification when I was found to be in the wrong, and I more easily prevail'd with others to give up their mistakes and join with me when I happened to be in the right.


Whether being humble gives fuel to appologists shouldn't matter--many apologists are exceptionally fuel efficient--they can talk and talk and talk with little to no fuel.
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.

-Yuval Noah Harari
_marg

Post by _marg »

Analytics wrote:
I don't think so. It's at least hypothetically possible that Tal did in fact misunderstand. Admitting that he may have misunderstood is different than admitting he deliberately lied.


No I don't think Tal should say he misunderstood, that would be a lie. But he just needs to say that his memory is different and apologize for saying anything which may have offended Keyes as he has no ill feelings for him and as it wasn't his intention.
_asbestosman
_Emeritus
Posts: 6215
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:32 pm

Post by _asbestosman »

marg wrote:
Analytics wrote:
I don't think so. It's at least hypothetically possible that Tal did in fact misunderstand. Admitting that he may have misunderstood is different than admitting he deliberately lied.


No I don't think Tal should say he misunderstood, that would be a lie. But he just needs to say that his memory is different and apologize for saying anything which may have offended Keyes as he has no ill feelings for him and as it wasn't his intention.

How is it lying to state that you may have misunderstood? That's always a possibility. Maybe it's unlikely that Tal misunderstood, but I guarantee that I see misunderstanding happen often when I think it shouldn't. Saying that one's recollection of events is different seems to amount to the same thing to me and I think it works just as well.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy.
eritis sicut dii
I support NCMO
_mbeesley
_Emeritus
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 10:51 pm

Post by _mbeesley »

marg wrote:
Analytics wrote:
I don't think so. It's at least hypothetically possible that Tal did in fact misunderstand. Admitting that he may have misunderstood is different than admitting he deliberately lied.


No I don't think Tal should say he misunderstood, that would be a lie. But he just needs to say that his memory is different and apologize for saying anything which may have offended Keyes as he has no ill feelings for him and as it wasn't his intention.

Read again what Analytics suggested--not that Bachman say he misunderstood, but that he may have misunderstood. It's a sorry and arrogant fellow who cannot admit that they may have misunderstood something someone else said.
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

bcspace wrote:And the only logical conclusion. Tal wants to be free to speak about this event while demanding the SP to be quite. I wonder why? Time for Tal to do us common courtesy and put up or shut up.


How is that the only logical conclusion? Explain your logic to me, please.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

John Larsen wrote:It is amazing that so many of them cannot tell the difference between an intellectual disagreement and fraud. It shows how corrupted their logical thought process as become. It does help preserve their siege mentality--for they are obviously surrounded by enemies who are out to get them through lies lies lies!


I think Tal described this phenomenon quite well when he wrote about the consequences of a truth-determined-by-authority culture. Anything that challenges authority in such a culture is readily accepted to be a lie.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

John Larsen wrote:Where has Tal demanded the SP to be quiet?


Exactly.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

bcspace wrote:
Where has Tal demanded the SP to be quiet?


Assuming the OP contains Tal's words....

I understand that my remarks may have put you in an awkward position; but I want to ask that in the future you refrain from claiming I have been incorrectly reporting your comments in our meeting, or that Tracy has incorrectly reported your comments in your subsequent meeting with her. (Do that, and some of your other comments, like your "spin doctor" comment which I've never repeated, will most likely go with me to the grave...).


Now try reading past what you have bolded here, BC. Asking him to refrain from a specific accusation is not the same as demanding that the man shut up.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_Trevor
_Emeritus
Posts: 7213
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:28 pm

Post by _Trevor »

Tal Bachman wrote:BC

Are you capable of understanding the difference between a plea that a guy stop falsely accusing you, and a please that he remain entirely silent?


The answer to your question, Tal, is that he obviously does not. And, I think you understand why that is. This is one of the reasons you got out of the LDS Church.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
_LifeOnaPlate
_Emeritus
Posts: 2799
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:50 pm

Post by _LifeOnaPlate »

Trevor wrote:
bcspace wrote:
Where has Tal demanded the SP to be quiet?


Assuming the OP contains Tal's words....

I understand that my remarks may have put you in an awkward position; but I want to ask that in the future you refrain from claiming I have been incorrectly reporting your comments in our meeting, or that Tracy has incorrectly reported your comments in your subsequent meeting with her. (Do that, and some of your other comments, like your "spin doctor" comment which I've never repeated, will most likely go with me to the grave...).


Now try reading past what you have bolded here, BC. Asking him to refrain from a specific accusation is not the same as demanding that the man shut up.


Didn't Tal specifically say "stop"?
One moment in annihilation's waste,
one moment, of the well of life to taste-
The stars are setting and the caravan
starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste!

-Omar Khayaam

*Be on the lookout for the forthcoming album from Jiminy Finn and the Moneydiggers.*
Post Reply