Quote:: "There’s not much more deceptive or misleading than a fake story without any disclosure that the story is hoax."
Ok Matt, please tell me, how would you make a top 10 for these keywords:
You know Matt, that I am with you on quite a lot of spam issues, even link buying, but this time, you've crossed an invisible line, I'm afraid... I hope very much, that we're misquoting you, or not understanding what you're saying...
You forgot this one: Inquisition
Ehh.... This post was written by a third grade grammar failure. Did Joost's blog get hacked?
joseph smith, creationism, fluoride, evolution, saddam had wmds, mobile weapons labs
I think the 3 subjects you picked are a bit lacking in taste. They are kinda perspectival in you presuming they are false. Even if I myself don't believe in all of them.
@John that was the point, I do believe some of them are true and some are not, but how would someone judge on that?
That's a nice Dutch approach, cartoons anyone?:).
You're right of course but not sure if this goes well with everybody as the examples are may be a bit close to home for some.
I think you're trying to hard to see your point, and/or making amuck over semantics.
To a lot of people (think in the region of a billion) the pope is infalible. To you and me he isn't. Fair enough.
But in this particular case, given that particular original post, it should have been very clear that it was about intentionally deceiving people.
@Gemme & @Tim: I think you don't know how WELL I know how hard these subjects are... I studied theology for a couple of years, and know exactly how a lot of people think about this, which is also the reason why I chose them, there are no "good" rights or wrongs in a lot of discussions.
That's true, however, my point was that it should have been very clear that Matt was talking about deliberately misleading people.
I think a fantastic rule of thumb is: "Is what I'm doing good for my visitor?" If the answer is yes, then there shouldn't be any trouble.
I think we can agree that intentionally posting a false story, just so people would link to you is not good for a visitor.
@Tim: the point is, who can determine that from the outside, and will they think the same of it in 10 years time? Even with a confession, such a thing is hard to proof...
The same is true in the real world. There are people who defraud others out of billions of Dollars. Some get caught, some don't.
Posting a story that isn't true is the same thing. You can or can't get caught. It's the downside to the technique: Someone can/will discover that something isn't true.
And linking this to religion once again: once enough people believe it not to be true, it will defacto become not true.
Or, what you posted could be so far fetched that it would be immediately clear.
There isn't such a thing as 100% right all the time, I think it's also impossible to demand that from someone.
So some will get caught, others will get away with it and some will be innocent victims. As long as the last category is kept to a minimum and is provided a way to set the record straight…
@Joost Actually I totally agreed with your post and appreciated that you dared to use these examples.
Maar in het Engels kwam dat dus verkeerd over:)
So according to you, if Google had been around in the first few centuries of our current era, they would have just banned the biblic stories from their index and we would all be atheïsts now? Or we would know a lot more about the people who wrote up these stories ;-)
It's all just a matter of context. I don't believe christianity (or any religion) would make those things up intentionally just to get people inside their churches or mosques.
@Sint hehe you have more faith than I :)
@Sint,
So if I follow your argument, in 2000 years all 13 year old boys will be spending the money from their fathers stolen credit cards on hookers, playing Playstation for the whole night in a motel room, without touching them.
Do you think they don't believe in sex before marriage? LOL