Craig Lamson Posted September 9, 2009 Share Posted September 9, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof. Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually? How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood? When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional. Thus it is disinformation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof. Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually? How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood? When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional. Thus it is disinformation. You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct. Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda. That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. Thanks Evan, I think if we define things more specifically we can think more clearly about these things. Of course, if you assume the more broad way of defining things, as Len would have us do, then you can make things more confusing for everyone, if that is your intention. BK Bill If what what you think is an overly broad definition of the term disinformation is so upsetting to you I suggest you edit the Wikipedia entry and then contact the editors of the five dictionaries I cited including Websters, Collins and Longman as well as the majority of writer who used the word and berate them for sowing confusion. Evan wrote: "Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government," Look at my previous post most dictionaries / users don't indicate disinfo has to be from a governmental source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. Thanks Evan, I think if we define things more specifically we can think more clearly about these things. Of course, if you assume the more broad way of defining things, as Len would have us do, then you can make things more confusing for everyone, if that is your intention. BK Bill If what what you think is an overly broad definition of the term disinformation is so upsetting to you I suggest you edit the Wikipedia entry and then contact the editors of the five dictionaries I cited including Websters, Collins and Longman as well as the majority of writer who used the word and berate them for sowing confusion. Evan wrote: "Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government," Look at my previous post most dictionaries / users don't indicate disinfo has to be from a governmental source. Evan, There's nothing to argue about. If you want to accept the less refined, more confusing definition, I don't care. But if you want to use it in discussing Fetzer or the assassination of JFK or discuss disinformation with me, then use the classic definition, because then we know what we are talking about. If you want to continue to confuse things, then continue to do so, but don't argue with me about it. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof. Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually? How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood? When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional. Thus it is disinformation. You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct. Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda. That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent? Disinformation isn't just intentionally wrong, it's dispensed on behalf of an agency or government in the course of support for policy or a covert operation, just as the idea that Castro was behind Dealey Plaza. Now if someone is simply dispensing wrong information and they know its wrong, then its called lying. You can call it misinformation, if they're confused or maybe not doing it intentionally. But its still not DISINFORMATION if the source is not an agency or government and its not done to promote a policy or support a covert op. You want to confuse things further, you can call Fetzer a disinformation agent, but anybody who knows Fetzer knows that's a joke and won't take you seriously. Those who really do dispense disinformation in the course of supporting policies and covert ops know what it means and use it distinctly. Those who want to make fun of Fetzer or don't care can call him anything they want, including disinformation agent, but in doing so, don't try to discuss real disinformation with anyone in the military or involved in government or covert ops, because you don't know what you are talking about. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof. Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually? How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood? When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional. Thus it is disinformation. You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct. Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda. That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent? Thus, Craig is a disidiot. If he can make up his own definitions then I can make up my own words. But to say something that you know is wrong, someone has already coined the term lying. Since you can't call someone a lier in the house of commons, Churchill said, "terminological inexactitude," which is what you want to do. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aEsEQBT6V.jA Disinformation isn't just intentionally wrong, it's dispensed on behalf of an agency or government in the course of support for policy or a covert operation, just as the idea that Castro was behind Dealey Plaza. Propaganda comes from the Catholic Church's propagation of the faith, and I think the term disinformation was coined by John Barron in trying to describe Soviet Dizinformation, used to promote its policies and support their covert ops against the West. If someone is simply dispensing wrong information and they know its wrong, we call it lying, but Fetzer, I think, is just confused by his own thinking, so its not intentionally lying. You can call it misinformation, but its not disinformation in either case. It's not DISINFORMATION if the source is not an agency or government and its not done to promote a policy or support a covert op. You want to confuse things further, you can call Fetzer a disinformation agent, but anybody who knows Fetzer knows that's a joke and won't take you seriously. Those who really do dispense disinformation in the course of supporting policies and covert ops know what it means and use it properly and distinctly. Those who want to make fun of Fetzer or don't care can call him anything they want, including disinformation agent, but in doing so, don't try to discuss real disinformation with anyone in the military or involved in government or covert ops, because you don't know what you are talking about. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof. Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually? How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood? When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional. Thus it is disinformation. You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct. Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda. That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent? Thus, Craig is a disidiot. If he can make up his own definitions then I can make up my own words. But to say something that you know is wrong, someone has already coined the term lying. Since you can't call someone a lier in the house of commons, Churchill said, "terminological inexactitude," which is what you want to do. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...id=aEsEQBT6V.jA Disinformation isn't just intentionally wrong, it's dispensed on behalf of an agency or government in the course of support for policy or a covert operation, just as the idea that Castro was behind Dealey Plaza. Propaganda comes from the Catholic Church's propagation of the faith, and I think the term disinformation was coined by John Barron in trying to describe Soviet Dizinformation, used to promote its policies and support their covert ops against the West. If someone is simply dispensing wrong information and they know its wrong, we call it lying, but Fetzer, I think, is just confused by his own thinking, so its not intentionally lying. You can call it misinformation, but its not disinformation in either case. It's not DISINFORMATION if the source is not an agency or government and its not done to promote a policy or support a covert op. You want to confuse things further, you can call Fetzer a disinformation agent, but anybody who knows Fetzer knows that's a joke and won't take you seriously. Those who really do dispense disinformation in the course of supporting policies and covert ops know what it means and use it properly and distinctly. Those who want to make fun of Fetzer or don't care can call him anything they want, including disinformation agent, but in doing so, don't try to discuss real disinformation with anyone in the military or involved in government or covert ops, because you don't know what you are talking about. BK Well I guess Bill is a dismoron who simply can't read. Len was kind enough to post more than one published definition showing you incorrect. Put that in your specfic pipe and smoke it Bill. To quote willy "If you want to continue to confuse things, then continue to do so, but don't argue with me about it." It's about INTENT willy.....govermental or individual. Edited September 10, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one "disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead" Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one"disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead" Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc? Fetzer gets published, simple as that -- nutter-trolls can't, they languish in the dark recesses of their minds hurling disinfo nuggets on whatever board allows them to post (including this board).... End of Story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one"disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead" Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc? Fetzer gets published, simple as that -- nutter-trolls can't, they languish in the dark recesses of their minds hurling disinfo nuggets on whatever board allows them to post (including this board).... End of Story! There is a much bigger market for books supporting conspiracy theory than there is for books debunking it. This is not however a measure of the accuracy, quality or educational significance of the former. The Sun newspaper for instance far outsells the Guardian. Dan Brown outsells George Orwell. More people listen to Michael Jackson than do Mozart. Market success is not often much more than a successful pandering to the lowest common denominator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one"disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead" Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc? Fetzer gets published, simple as that -- nutter-trolls can't, they languish in the dark recesses of their minds hurling disinfo nuggets on whatever board allows them to post (including this board).... End of Story! Who cares if he "publishes" And who cares if I get published. In fact its about the last thing I would want. Facts are stubborn things and here are some facts your merry band of wacko PhD's simply can't refute. www.craiglamson.com/costella.htm www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm www.craiglamson.com/apollo.htm END OF STORY! Edited September 10, 2009 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one"disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead" Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc? Fetzer gets published, simple as that -- nutter-trolls can't, they languish in the dark recesses of their minds hurling disinfo nuggets on whatever board allows them to post (including this board).... End of Story! There is a much bigger market for books supporting conspiracy theory than there is for books debunking it. This is not however a measure of the accuracy, quality or educational significance of the former. The Sun newspaper for instance far outsells the Guardian. Dan Brown outsells George Orwell. More people listen to Michael Jackson than do Mozart. Market success is not often much more than a successful pandering to the lowest common denominator. I would think the opposite. There is a much more rewarding market for those debunking conspiracy theories or promoting a bogus one - ie. Mafia, Cuba, than there is for anyone trying to promote the truth - Larry Hancock, Dick Russell, Tony Summers, et al. The line isn't drawn in the sand between those who believe in conspiracies and those who don't, the line is drawn between those who seek the truth and those who are promoting their own theory. As for those who want to define disinformation as anything other than originating from a government or intelligence agency in promotion of their policies or actions, then we must come up with another word that describes this specific task, because it certainly doesn't relate to Fetzer by any stretch of the meaning of the word. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted September 10, 2009 Share Posted September 10, 2009 (edited) Bill you're normally quite rational so I don't know why you are getting so worked up, hostile and insulting over the definition of a word. But a word to the wise if you are going to insult people at least get your facts straight neither Craig nor I made our own definitions of "disinformation" several dictionaries including Princeton, Collins, Longman (British) and Webster's considered to be the most authoritative American dictionary and it turns out so does Oxford considered to be the most definative British one"disinformation • noun - information which is intended to mislead" Compact Oxford English Dictionary of Current English http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/disinformation?view=uk You're wrong but you are too stubborn to admit it or do you think your understanding of English is better than the editors at Websters and Oxford etc? Well, now I know why the HSCA and ARRB and other official reports and laws, put their specific definitions of frequently used words in the very beginning, rather than at the end. And since I am going to be focusing on the very origin of the Castro killed JFK DISINFORMAITON - I define that here as information promoted by an agent or asset on behalf of a government or intelligence agency or network - and not anything else. Anything else could include somebody like Fetzer, who promotes his own theories, but isn't backed or supported by any agency or government; Why do you insist on calling Fetzer a disinformation agent, when he isn't an agent at all. Isn't an agent someone who represents someone else? So we agree he doesn't represent anyone else, so why insist he be called a disinformation agent when he is really a totally different animal, other than to dilute the meaning of the term, and thus put misguided professors like Fetzer into the same category as real DISINFORMATION agents like Epstein, Russo, Holland, et al.? But even if you expand this definition to include anyone with the intention of misleading others - regardless of their support or motivation, that still doesn't include Fetzer, who I do not believe intends to mislead, because he believes what he says. So, if you forget the misleading, liberal generalists and Wicki, Websters and Oxford, and accept the classical definition of disinformation as that info dispensed by a government or intelligence agency to promote their policies and actions, then we can begin to discuss who is really forming and shaping policies and actions rather than being sidetracked by misguided professors, who you apparently find a more easy target. BK Edited September 10, 2009 by William Kelly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 I think I'll go with Bill on this: it's misinformation. The difference between disinformation and misinformation (despite Bills desire to pin disinformation completely on government) is intent or lack thereof. Are you now saying that Fetzer is spreading falsehoods but is doing it unintentually? How do you square that with someone providing unimpeachable empirical proof that Fetzer (or anyone for that matter) is wrong, but he still continues to spread the falsehood? When you know sometihng is wrong and you can't disprove that which shows it is wrong....continuing to tell the falsehood becomes intentional. Thus it is disinformation. You make a good point Craig. Although the definition almost always link disinformation with a government, I think it could apply to the individual. I can accept misinformation being incorrect data, told in the belief it is correct. Deliberate dissemination of data that is demonstrably false, on the other hand, would be disinformation: an attempt to deceive, perhaps propaganda. That raises the question once again: is Unca Fetz a myopic zealot, or is he a disinformation agent? Disinformation isn't just intentionally wrong, it's dispensed on behalf of an agency or government in the course of support for policy or a covert operation, just as the idea that Castro was behind Dealey Plaza. Now if someone is simply dispensing wrong information and they know its wrong, then its called lying. You can call it misinformation, if they're confused or maybe not doing it intentionally. But its still not DISINFORMATION if the source is not an agency or government and its not done to promote a policy or support a covert op. You want to confuse things further, you can call Fetzer a disinformation agent, but anybody who knows Fetzer knows that's a joke and won't take you seriously. Those who really do dispense disinformation in the course of supporting policies and covert ops know what it means and use it distinctly. Those who want to make fun of Fetzer or don't care can call him anything they want, including disinformation agent, but in doing so, don't try to discuss real disinformation with anyone in the military or involved in government or covert ops, because you don't know what you are talking about. BK Funny. Although you may be incapable of being otherwise, being so bossy doesn't seem to help your cause much, Mr. K. Because someone could point out that you yourself don't seem nearly so meticulous about how you use other terms -- like for instance the term assassination ..... It's often confusing that you seem to use this term to represent any murder, or homicide, or even just an untimely death: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...14165&st=15 Post #29; March 29, 2009 "More governments change hands by political assassination than by democratic means, and since being assassinated is President Obama's most serious threat today, political assassination is the most serious threat to the national security of the United States, and that is the case because the assassination of President Kennedy remains unresolved." At first glance this (these?) categorical statement(s) seemed unusually questionable since I had a very definite idea of what "political assassination" means -- for instance, the murder of a head of state, leader of government, or a political leader in general; and this occurring outside the given legal framework of a society; and this occurring in societies that have moved beyond hunter-gatherer tribal forms. So for instance I wouldn't have thought to include the murders of tribal chiefs among Neanderthals as "political assassinations." And I wouldn't have thought to include the executions of John the Baptist, Jesus of Nazareth, King Charles I or King Louis XVI as "political assassinations," since in each case the person in question was subjected to capital punishment by the existing state authority. I admit this gets a little murky, since Julius Caesar was assassinated by a number of Roman senators (arguably constituting "state authority"). What was more difficult to figure out was this: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14516 Post #4; July 2, 2009 "It seems like when the foreign interest in Iran declined (with Michael Jackson's assassination), the Iranians got harsher on dissent, but while the world was watching they backed off." At the time you wrote this, it was assumed by some unsentimental folks (me) that Michael died because he'd had no nose left with which to breathe. But in any event, the investigation eventually ruled it as a case of homicide, and yet prior to all that you called it an "assassination." This is very puzzling, since Michael Jackson can hardly be considered any kind of "political leader." At most, more sentimental people than myself might speak of such stars having "political influence" of some kind ("moral influence" maybe), but that seems fairly nebulous in terms of real political power and I don't think Bono or Sting or Bob Geldof or Diana Spencer or even John Lennon represented any "political threat" in the sense that we think of Martin Luther King, Jr. representing such ...... So in terms of your insistence on clarity and precise definitions and getting rid of confusion, it might be helpful to not include so many deaths under the general blanket term assassination. On another point, it may also be unhelpful to your cause that you've jumped in with your biceps unfurled, throwing around your typically categorical statements -- this time about things we can be sure of in the case of Jim Fetzer. This only lends credence to the research of Tim and Jim Imbecile, as they've noted the phenomenon of Respectable Researchers taking up for Extremist Researchers in the Conspiracy Research Community, as if some sort of game would fall apart if the Extremists were ever exposed as a real detriment to the whole research effort ......... This was exactly the sort of thing that caused Prince Philip to lose support among the youth, when he'd previously scored so many point with all the drug-running ......... First off, you have yet to see my biceps. Second, there is no such thing as the "research coummunity," and while I've never been called bossy before, I'm just sticking to my guns. And I'm not defending Fetzer, I'm just saying he's not a disinformaiton agent. As for the wanton use of political assassination, point well taken. I won't do it again. And thanks for pointing out that Michael Jackson statement. I don't remember writing about "Michael Jackson's assassination," and I'm glad you cited the link because I wouldn't have believed I wrote it myself, but there it is, and in rereading it, I must have just read a reference to that - and was just kidding. Like Peter referred to Ted Kennedy' assassination. Exaggerating the death of Michael Jackson certainly did take the Iranian elections off the front page, and I guess I thought it was funny, so I'm not all that stiff and stuffy. But I most certainly won't use the term that way again, even trying to be funny. As it turns out, as you point out, we learn after I wrote that, that MJ was murdered. And I think we should distinguish the difference between murder and assassination. Since there are different types of murder - homicide, first degree, spree, manslaughter, there should be different types of assassination, and the differences should be made clear, that is if anyone wants to discuss them seriously. BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted September 11, 2009 Share Posted September 11, 2009 Why do you insist on calling Fetzer a disinformation agent, when he isn't an agent at all. Isn't an agent someone who represents someone else? So we agree he doesn't represent anyone else, so why insist he be called a disinformation agent when he is really a totally different animal, other than to dilute the meaning of the term, and thus put misguided professors like Fetzer into the same category as real DISINFORMATION agents like Epstein, Russo, Holland, et al.? But even if you expand this definition to include anyone with the intention of misleading others - regardless of their support or motivation, that still doesn't include Fetzer, who I do not believe intends to mislead, because he believes what he says. Bill in an earlier post you accused me of being confused but that was a rather obvious case of projection. I never said Fetzer was a “disinfo agent” in fact I never used the word ‘agent’ on this thread (until now of course). I didn’t even say he pronouncements were pure ‘disinfo’ but rather that they fell between ‘disinfo’ and ‘misinfo’ because he repeated the same errors despite having been corrected on several occasions. So, if you forget the misleading, liberal generalists and Wicki, Websters and Oxford, and accept the classical definition of disinformation as that info dispensed by a government or intelligence agency to promote their policies and actions, then we can begin to discuss who is really forming and shaping policies and actions rather than being sidetracked by misguided professors, who you apparently find a more easy target. On what basis did you determine that your definition of the word was "the classical" one? I cited 7 dictionaries, 5 (3 American, 2 British) agree with me but only one agrees with you and one gives a definition different from both of ours (indicating that it only refers to military info.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now