The War on Information
 

[someone] created a fake FB account, posted a paraphrase of what Spicer actually DID say, then [someone] reported it to Snopes, to be rated FALSE, then [someone] disseminated this enough to reach Page 1, Google News tab for the term "Spicer"

End result: confirmation that "The Liberal Media" is lying to you about the latest, horrible thing.
Even the Liberal, Soros-controlled Snopes website agrees the Media is lying!! . . . R.I.P. Information

*shakes head*

FALSE:
In a botched attempt to clarify his previous statements about Adolf Hitler and chemical weapons, Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said he meant Hitler never used them on "fellow Germans."

TRUE:
In a botched attempt to clarify his previous statements about Adolf Hitler and chemical weapons, Trump press secretary Sean Spicer said he meant Hitler never used them on "his own people."



In case you've been asleep for 48 hours and missed it, German Jews weren't Hitler's "own people."

As per usual, liberals are hysterical about nothing.

That is a terrible "Snopes"... Don't they usually have more context than that?

What they were actually rating as "false" was that the provided facebook account was Spicer, which would be important to note even if it had correctly quoted him, but the headline and the lack of any context certainly is misleading.

Hitler didn't gas his own people, the Austrians.

Hitler didn't gas his fellow Germans because he wasn't German.

Too many facts. It must be fake news.

We need to stop seeing this as fake news and alternative facts, it's not a war on information, it's "Free Market Information"

I will post more on this topic tomorrow

Free market information: I am free to market any lies I want.

Those who do it most also habitually sexually abuse their women employees. Then pay out $3 million and $20 million settlements - to restrict the news. In free market information, one can also pay to suppress the news.

Or the day after.

Well that's something new since the Adam and Eve in Paradise...
Information always served and serves and will serve to get your point over...
We just have a stronger sense of the importance of "truth". Now let's all go down the rabbit hole of psychological meanings of truth...

Truth is rather easy. But most avoid what is necessary to have knowledge.

First a hypothesis must exist based in well proven science. Second, experimental evidence with perspective (numbers) must exist to demonstrate or confirm a hypothesis.

Fake news only says what you must believe. It does not say why. Fake new only uses sound byte reasoning. A reply based in reality must be long - often including repeatedly the examples (perspective; experimental evidence) that confirms a hypothesis.

For example, war is only justified when three things exist. First is a smoking gun - as made obvious even in Art of War some 2500 years ago. East coast US is littered with ships sunk by Germans before the US went to war. Even that was an insufficient smoking gun. A smoking gun was Pearl Harbor.

Gulf of Tonkin was hyped as a smoking gun. We all know it was not. In fact it was a lie. So war in Vietnam was never justified. Therefore that war was a defeat. Such examples are numerous throughout history.

Reality is not explained by a soundbyte. We massacred some 50,000 American servicemen because soundbytes (fake new; emotional reasoning; even McCarthyism) replaced what is required: many paragraphs that include a hypothesis and experimental evidence.

Many have insufficient attention span to even comprehend something this short. So many become victims of fake news or alternative facts.

Spicer's mistake - he tried to provide reasons why. He did not accurately remember (learn) details. Yes, Nazis developed Sarin in the 1930s. They stockpiled Sarin laced artillery shells. Spicer simply used an emotional and generalized soundbyte to explain details he forgot to learn. But his job is not to provide details necessary for knowledge. He forgot his purpose: to tell the naive what to believe. And to not provide details necessary to provide a valid conclusion - as we were all taught in junior high science.

Soundbyte term for what Spicer is supposed to do is 'brainwashing'. That means avoid details - learning them or reciting them.

To summarize the thread: you can't justify a "War on Information" unless you have a smoking gun.

I used to have one but I moved on from such things.

Exactly why so many fear gun control.

A minor battle in the war on information was won today. Bill O'Reilly was fired.

Colbert will be devastated, I'm sure.

He cannot even go in and go postal on the boss? Boss got fired for doing the same thing. Worse, even his bosses long knew about it and the many $million payoffs.

He'll be in government before you can say, "Impeach the motherfucker."

sumbody gotta say it...
 

Bill O's downfall has way more to do with his popularity and the popularity of FOX than with his supposed harassing behavior.

If FOX were small potatoes, if Bill O just a blip (or if he were a big commie on MSNBC) not a soul would give two shits if he hit on the ladies.

Exactly. They used the resulting large sums of money to cover up and protect criminal behavior - for decades. And then promoted themselves as honest and ethical.

A trend more often found in extremists (who also use hate as a promotion tool). And less often among moderates.

Wow, didn't take you long to pipe in and ride coat tails.

For the record, folks: my trolling is in no way associated with TW's trolling.

We are independent (of each other) trolls.

He was canned to get the approval of a 15 Billion dollar merger in Europe.

What you talkin' about, Willis?

This.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...f-the-sky-deal

Leaks from the Murdoch family say he was just fine with his employees actions (and resulting $millions of hush money). Murdoch had decided to let it all blow over. But his sons apparently view sexual assault as criminal activity that must stop. Apparently Rubert Murdoch's sons kept demanding a pragmatic approach. And are wielding more power. Fox executives and stars who routinely conducted sexual harassment and were exposed had to go.

Its no accident that criminal activity was most often in Murdoch businesses. As sons take more power, interesting will be how a corrupt culture changes. Does it start acting in a more ethical manner - as Bill Krystal of the Weekly Standard has openly discussed (or complained).

It does whatever it takes to increase profits even if that means becoming more ethical; because, the purpose of a business is to make money.

Never was. That is the purpose of the mafia and the Central Committee of the Communist party. Enrich top management. Even George Orwell's "Animal Farm" made that obvious.

In ethical organizations, its purpose was always the product. Not the sexual gratification at the expense of others by top management and other elites.

The purpose of business has always been to barter for goods and services; or, to make money as a medium of exchange. The purpose of bartering or making money by doing business was never the product; but, the acquisition of products and services; or, medium of exchange.

This just has to be repeated until you can grasp reality.

GM's and Chrysler's purpose was profits. So the government had to bail them out. William Clay Ford said the purpose of a company is its products - a radical change from Nasser who only wanted profits. So Ford did not request or need government bailout. Ford's reward - not its purpose - record profits.

Purpose is either a product or profit. It cannot be both. Companies that only want profits (Sears, Radio Shack, etc) end up only enriching the central committee of the communist party- top management. While blaming everyone but themselves.

This has been long understood. American steel companies who did not care about the product - therefore do not even have electric arc furnaces - will now run to The Donald for protection. Why? Because foreign steel companies addressed their product. Ie use electric arc furnaces. Therefore also have profits, no adversarial employees, no financing problems, a growing market share, etc.

American steel companies cost controlled products to create profits. Must again run to the government for protection.

This will be denied by extremists who will love it when The Donald protects anti-innovation (anti-American) steel companies. Habitual extremist is a sounding board to demonstrate that ignorance and denial lives on. Extremists cannot learn. Extremist can only recite what their handlers (talking heads) tell them to believe.

Only moderates learn and think for themselves.

I know moderates. Moderates are friends of mine. You, dingbat, are no moderate. You build castles in the air and then live in them. That's not moderate: that's developmentally impaired. Product can be a medium of profit. It's called assets. The financially ignorant will deny that purpose of business is profit. They are the tools of losers like Hillary.

as i recall, tw and me had this discussion way back
 

This is how it works in the real world...

The owner/operator wants to make money (profit).

He does so cuz he wants to eat, shelter himself, buy stuff, etc.

He makes money by offering a product or service.

If wise, he offers the best product or service he can, at the best price he can, cuz, in doing so, he increases the probability of repeat and increased sales.

If unwise, he offers shit (usually flashy, designed to draw the eye and nuthin' more), or (rarely) he just gives his product or sevice away which is nice for the consumer but does nuthin' to feed or shelter the owner/operator (self-care, again, bein' the reason the owner went into business)

Business, then, is not about 'making the world better' but is, always has been, and always will be, about makin' a buck.

"There's no such thing as a business." - Elon Musk

I think Elon Musk is proof that business isn't necessarily about profits. It can be about achieving other goals.

Yeah, as long as you have deep, deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep pockets.

I don't know about anybody else's business, but, my business was designed from the get go to make money. Didn't do it cuz I love trees. Did it cuz I love money and the things it can buy.

That's not what I take away from the Elon Musk example. His businesses are for-profit and the prognosis is poor for him to accomplish his goals if he doesn't realize a profit. I think that business can be so much more than just profit; but, the profit needs to be there.

Neil deGrasse Tyson:

All those enthusiastic people Musk hires have to be paid. They may work for less to be part of it, but still get paid. That money comes from profits or Musk. If there is no profit, it becomes a rich mans hobby or history.

The distinction is whether profit is a means or an end.

But in the end profit must happen unless you have other means. ;)

He had deep pockets because his entire life has been about the product.

Only other way to make massive profits - fraud, screwing counter-parties, cost controls, and blame the employees. Also called the mafia or central committee of the communist party.

This is always impossible for extremists to understand. The purpose and reward are two completely different. In operations that are patriotic American, profits come from better products. In operations actively destroying American living standards, only profit is the purpose. Blame everyone else.

Read what he said. He had no idea if his endeavors would be profitable. He did not care. He takes risks on ideas that business school graduates automatically declare unprofitable - and therefore fear and stifle.

Great entrepreneurs do that. They have no idea if it will be profitable. But it might work. Nine out of ten Silicon Valley businesses fail. Great ideas rarely create a profit. Therefore the Valley is extremely profitable and successful. Profits are not the purpose. Product is everything.

Elon Musk has a higher percentages of success - because he attempts ideas / concepts that are not profitable on any spread sheet. Howard Hughes and Sir Richard Branson did same. So did George Soros and Albert Blumenthal. Or Jeff Bezos.

In every case, they had no idea if it would be profitable. And did not care. They only viewed the product to decide if a risk was worth it. They did not do it for the wealth. They did it for what most everyone works for - accomplishment. Again, money is a reward - not the purpose. Some do not even demand a reward - ie Jimmy Wales.

In every case, the purpose was the product - a personal accomplishment. Even Ayn Rand books make that point. Many foolishly think it is only about profit. When the greedy took over society and innovations, then workers literally walked off the job in frustration. They could not do their job (ie engineers in frustration abandoned their train in a tunnel. So passengers later died - Atlas Shrugged).

Also why communism fails. People are denied what they want most - accomplishment. That is not money. Money is farther down the list - ie #3 or #5). People work first and foremost for accomplishment. They expect a just reward. It need not even be massive. Since reward is not the purpose.

Bill Gates did not quit school to become rich. He was in a hurry to accomplish something in computers. He did not know what. He knew opportunity existed to accomplish something. He became rich only because he stumbled into successful products.

When replaced by someone who only wanted to make profits, Steve Ballmer, well Microsoft suffered almost ten years of defective or mediocre products. Because Ballmer wanted profits - not better products. Ballmer had to leave to save Microsoft.

Or Wantanabe wanted to make Toyota the world's #1 automaker - to increase profits. So Toyota's sterling quality image was tarnished by massive defects including Camry anti-lock brakes and defective V-8 engines in most all Tundra pickups. Toyoda said there are five steps to bankruptcy. Toyota was already at step 3. We know why Wantanabe only wanted to increase profits. Toyoda would spend most of the next ten years undoing disasters created by someone who only wanted to make profits.

We know Intel's management has long never made decisions based in profits. Intel recently risked the entire company because their products did not meet Moore's law. We all know what happened when they risked everything to maintain product advancement. Intel CPUs now dominate. And AMD was facing bankruptcy. AMD took a profitable strategy. How did that work out?

These well understood principles require more than a soundbyte to comprehend. Many are only educated in what soundbytes and business school philosophies have ordered them to believe. So they foolishly assume the purpose of a business is profits - screw the product - as both communism and the mafia believe.

Purpose of every company that makes America great - better products. Purpose of so many companies that are dragging America down (ie Sears, Radio Shack, big steel, coal industry) - profits.

For every example of successful high risk takers cited, who went into business for reasons other than profit, there are hundreds who failed for the same reason. Just happening to be in the right market at the right time and succeeding is the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, everyone would be doing it. The purpose of business is to make profit. If that profit enables the accomplishment of other goals, great. There's no shortage of businesses that are making better products while bringing America down by pricing themselves out of the marketplace because they didn't watch their profit margin. Bottom line - profit.

Those wearing the blinders of developmental impairment focus their tunnel vision on what makes news rather than the reality of day to day life for the many, the backbone of America. Those social dropouts who've lost touch mindlessly follow others like Hillary who drive the utopia bandwagon. They're all failures because regardless of education level they lack the ability to apply their knowledge to resolve practical situations.

In your first sentence, you say some people go into business for "reasons other than profit." Your words.

Therefore, businesses aren't always for profit. Obviously, the profit has to be part of it if they want to keep operating. But there can be other reasons.

I work at a law firm, and it was founded by the original partners as a place to be special compared to other law firms at the time. They wanted to surround themselves with special people who would work hard but also enjoy each other's company. Build a reputation. Make a decent place to work. The purpose of that business they made was to make a living, not to make a profit. They have all retired, and the "business is for profit" jerks have taken over running the place. It sucks now.

bear with me, folks...just wanna be clear on sumthin'
 

If I, as business owner/operator, look to make money by way of offering a decent product or service, at a decent price, then I'm doomed to indulge in "fraud, screwing counter-parties, cost controls, and blam(ing) the employees" as a greedhead scumbag commie-fuck.

But, if I only look to offering great services or products and worry not one bit about makin' money then not only will I be rewarded with wealth beyond measure, but I'll also be a 'damned fine human being'.

Is that how it works?

Aiming for high-quality products often requires aiming past short-term profits. If you're focused on the profits, you'll keep hitting shorter and shorter-term profits, until you're just shooting your own foot.

That's a good starting point. The split in the road is when you're faced with the option of making a little more profit by making the product a little less decent.

Biggest reason for business failure is concentration on (attention to) profits. That myopia routinely creates failures - once one learns from history and not their emotions.

If making an innovative (desired) product, it should be making a profit. If it does not concentrate on the only thing that matters - products - then massive losses are realized years later. The word loser applies to those who dumbly believe profits are the purpose.

Profit does not exist for maybe four or ten years. In a productive environment, profits cannot be quantified. Any effort to do so often harms the product. Only the product can be quantified today. If they get it right, then profits are massive - but only years or decades later.

GM worried about profits 20 years ago. GM must now pay $millions to maybe 1000 Cobalt owners - because they worried about profits - not the product. GM maimed and murdered people - to protect profits. Extremist (low intelligent) management thought only profits mattered.

Opel, that once earned GM $1billion annually, was cost controlled to increase profits. Resulting in crap for decades - because profits were important. GM must sell Opel to create profits. GM cannot fix Opel by addressing an inferior product line. Only those so extremist as to want profits will sell capital assets to claim them as profits. GM refused to let Opel develop new products - to cost control - to increase profits.

How did William Clay Ford fix Ford? Moderates learn from reality. He ignored profits. He addressed reasons for Ford's self destruction. Everything Ford made in 2000 was crap. In 2007, Ford had never lost more money in the company's history. Because William Clay ignored profits seven years ago. Therefore he was intelligent - not brainwashed by emotions and rhetoric. He did not take government money even though losses in almost 100 years (by number and percentage) had never been larger. He ignored profits - only addressed products.

Ford ignored profits - resulting in highest profits in Ford's history a decade later. It takes long for products to create profits. Intelligent moderates create everything good by ignoring profits - only address the product.

A peer was driven from top Apple management - because Apple only wanted profits. He walked out in overt anger because Apple refused to let new products be developed. Apple would not design any product that was not justified by profits. Therefore Apple products were crap - made diminishing and no profits.

What changed? Business school graduates - driven by profits - were replaced by people who ignored profits - who focused only on products.

Amelio was not wacko dumb. He ignored profits; only addressed the product. What resulted is almost routine. It saved Apple. Attention only on products created historical profits. They had profits because they wanted better products - not profits.

Companies that worry about profits routinely self destruct many years and decades later. Almost every time despite emotional and extremist rhetoric. Companies that survive for decades concentrate fully and only on their products. History has not changed despite what soundbyte rhetoric proves.

The biggest reason for business failure is lack of profit. Profit may be programmed into a business model to occur years down the road, profit may be put back into a business; or, used for other things like pursuing lofty goals. Anything done in the way of goods and services is to create the profit that sustains the business and enables achieving goals. That some businesses didn't do enough with their goods and services to sustain profit doesn't change the fact that business is about profit. It just means they were poorly run by people who weren't about the business and only in it for what they could take from the business for themselves.

Those who are less than children (i.e. developmentally impaired) are unable to differentiate the concept of business profit from personal gain. They can't see the forest from the trees. Those are the delusional minds who believe that business is about product when the fact is that consumer demand is about product while business is about profit. Business models take consumer demand into account only insofar as it doesn't negatively impact profit.

Hey tw, cootchie-cootchie-coo! Cootchie-cootchie-coo!


(Is he smiling?)

Business is about profit. THEY weren't primarily about business. They were about something else; but, needed the business for its profit to get there. Otherwise, they wouldn't have gone the business route.

If they got any kind of retirement benefits out of it, including the employer's contribution to Social Security, they had profit sharing. Sounds like the people running it now want theirs up front. Perhaps they don't think that retiring from there is a viable option for them anymore.

Biggest reason for no profit is a total disregard for the product - almost every time. But that is impossible to learn when brainwashing is entrenched.

If a product advances mankind, then a company is probably earning a profit. If a product does not advance mankind, that company has no profit and is probably using money games to mask negative returns.

AT&T did that for decades until finally purchased by SouthWest Bell. GM has been doing that for decades. Opel is a latest example. They even shorted pension funds. Sold Hughes Electronics to cover that debt. Then did it again. Then dumped an unfunded $8 billion debt on the US government.

Radio Shack has been doing that for most of the past 20 years. Sears has been doing that for almost as long. Toshiba has been doing same. Enron was a classic example. AIG was using money games to print money - until their zero profits game came crashing down. RCA started doing that in the late 1960s. Then Jack Welsh offered Bradshaw a $2million bonus to sell RCA to GE for pennies. GE got NBC for free. Bradshaw only saw what he understood - personal profits.

Dennys did that when TW Enterprises - business school graduates - even subverted management reviews; that were completely irrelevant even to good food.

In every case - without exception - missing profits are directly traceable to a company that ignored their product ten or more years previously.

Ashton-Tate was the world's largest PC Software manufacturer. They had an Office suite long before Microsoft did. With legendary names such as dBase, Multi-Mate, and VisiCalc. Then the founder died. Ed Esber subverted product development. He began increasing profits with profit games such as new product packaging. The world's largest PC software manufacturer was in obvious trouble eight years later - especially after dBase IV set a new standard for unreliable and buggy software. Directly traceable to a boss who focused on profits - the product was only a necessary evil.

Negative profits because Ed Esber, et al ignored the only function of any company - its products.

The naive cannot post one example to support an erotic fantasy. He was told the purpose of a business was profits. Clearly it never was. The easily brainwashed will only repeat a same myth without even one honest reason or example. Knowledge requires logical thought - not masturbating the same lies.

Obviously no profit results from is a total disregard of products. Defective products, due to misguided management, created no profits less than a decade later. No examples contradict that reality. Since brainwashing does not provide facts or honesty. Just another example of a war on honest information.

Business is about profit EVERY time.

By your own words, product may or may not result in no profit. Even then, it's really human disregard for the profit making product. Human disregard for other sound business practices may result in no profit as well. One could create a laundry list of things which, like product, can have an adverse affect profit; but, it all comes back to profit. Business is about profit EVERY time.

There are tons of businesses that do not advance mankind. They simply maintain it. Everyone here uses some of their products everyday. They are invaluable and they are quite profitable.

The examples you post are all the result of confirmation bias. That and the ridiculous conclusions you draw from them reflect the workings of a developmentally impaired mind. This precludes posting examples for your benefit as you consider any source which disagrees with you to be invalid.

All anyone else has to do is go through business bankruptcy records to find a myriad of reasons for failure to make profit other than disregard for product. I don't mean just the high profile ones that a developmentally impaired person reads about and thinks they can now pontificate on.

I'm so sorry your parents didn't get you the mental healthcare that you needed; so, you unwittingly became a propagandist like your father. Without timely intervention, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

Cootchie-cootchie-coo! Cootchie-cootchie-coo!

C'mon, turn that frown upside down. You make people laugh! At least you've got that going for you.

And then the usual turds follow. Purpose of a business is its product. Only the extremist denies that. A company that makes good products realizes reward many years later. A company that ignores their product faces bankruptcy years later. Another example of war on information. Extremists will post lies and cheapshots incessantly to destroy knowledge - subvert honesty - because idols such as O'Reilly told him how to think. A war on honest information.

Companies that made good products have failed to realize reward later because the products were not well marketed, the costs associated with making the products went up, the anticipated market declined (recessions happen), company scandal; or, special interest groups caused a boycott of the product ... etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Companies that ignored their products have realized substantial reward because their simple products basically sell themselves.

Only in the delusional world of developmentally impaired tw are causes and effects extrapolated to be absolute across the board. It's the ridiculously incompetent interpretation of information that not only makes what tw presents useless, the counter-presentation of information will be incompetently interpreted by tw as well. It's a function of tw's mental impairment which makes taking him seriously an exercise in futility. Likewise the paranoia that has tw seeing extremists everywhere.

The thing one can count on in business is that if the bottom line is never provided for, one will go out of business. Since there are always unforetold expenses in business (accidents happen), businesses do not strive to break even to the penny. Business is about profit.

The thing one can count on with tw is that he lacks scruples necessary to be a credible source of information. That doesn't; however, mean tw's infantile demeanor can't be entertaining.

Now fellas, don't make it personal. There is no profit in that, so doomed to failure no matter how good your argument the public won't buy it. :lol2:

Did sexobon swallow his penis again? Will somebody pull it out for him?

Let's take another look at tw's developmentally impaired perspective on how paying attention to business product is good for America. Cigarette producers paid a great deal of attention to product and product improvement. They made them longer, added filters, added menthol, improved packaging for freshness, and they hired tw's father to advertise for them and tell Americans how just good they were. When one brand is promoted, all brands benefit. The tw family relished in the rewards of paying attention to product and product improvement that their propaganda brought about.

The tw family attention to product has contributed to more than 480,000 deaths annually in the United States [CDC] and nearly 6 million deaths annually worldwide [CDC] due to cigarette smoking. Still, the developmentally impaired tw whines about others causing 60,000 total American military fatal casualties in Vietnam over 20 years and 5,000 total in the Gulf War to Mission Accomplished.

The tw family tradition of propaganda would now have Americans believe that business is about product above all else. Tw wants Americans to forget about profits so businesses will fail. Subversives are as subversives do and it gets passed down from one generation to the next, from a father who wanted harmful business to flourish in America to a son who wants beneficial business to wither. We're living in the tw family era of business propaganda directed against the hard working Americans they detest. When was the last time you got the impression that tw liked you; or, valued your opinion and wasn't just feigning interest so you'd continue to listen [rhetorical]?

Every so often I step back into this thread to see if there's anything interesting in here about net neutrality - and then I see it's still just Sexobon and tw waving their dicks in each other's faces.

that's way more entertaining and informative

You're not are paying enough attention to tw ; so ...

And this isn't the net neutrality thread.

You have still time to pull a tw and edit your post after a reply.

Keep 'em entertained. :D

Heh. You're right it's not. *rolls eyes*



I'm sure at one point it was about something though.

It's about tw, all your Cellar threads belong to tw.

BTW, I noticed that Freudian slip where you spelled sexobon with an upper case S and left that little pecker tw in lower case while talking about waving our dicks. I'm glad this thread is turning you on. Consider it part of the entertainment.

Oh, I didn't know the tw's did such good for mother earth. Go killers. :beer: