Malchow Photography wrote:
NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER....

e last year...
Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?
It's the 535 members of the United States Congress. The same group that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

so people aren't perfect ?

Gosh

Ron B Blake wrote:
Great Post but could i ask were this data of information is from?

Source unspecified.

The first part has been floating around the 'net since before the web, and discussions about the veracity can be found on truthorfiction.com,  snopes.com, and elsewhere. Snopes notes (among other things) that "It has some good points, namely that by selectively choosing which facts to report, you can make just about anyone look good or bad."

The part about Congress dates back to at least 1999, and snopes debunked most of it in 2002 (with updates since then).

Ron B Blake wrote:
Great Post but could i ask were this data of information is from?

I have seen all of this going around the net for YEARS. never bothered to check it out for myself though...too apathetic. And, to misquote 'Lenny' from Spinal Tap, "I believe virtually everything I read which I believe makes me a more knowledgeable than those who believe nothing"

Nerlande wrote:
This is very Myspace.

It may be vey myspace, Nerlande, but that is not the issue here.

The whole point of this post was to bring up a point.

And that point is don't judge people. Give them a chance. Give them an opportunity to prove their worth or ability.

Some people here on MM have yet to grow, or show their true potential. Don't judge them before you have met and worked with them.
Try to see what potential they have or are capable of achieving.

Christopher  Marcel wrote:
Great post.

Thank you.

Sxy6ftr wrote:
dude, I didn't know adolf was so straight laced, they say watch out for the goody two shoes...just like the preacher's daughter scenario!

Actually he was until he came into power.

~Absolute power corrupts absolutely.~

Kevin Connery wrote:

Source unspecified.

The first part has been floating around the 'net since before the web, and discussions about the veracity can be found on truthorfiction.com,  snopes.com, and elsewhere. Snopes notes (among other things) that "It has some good points, namely that by selectively choosing which facts to report, you can make just about anyone look good or bad."

The part about Congress dates back to at least 1999, and snopes http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/c … most of it in 2002 (with updates since then).

Thank you! I didn't have any idea as to where the info came from.

Malchow Photography wrote:
The whole point of this post was to bring up a point.

One extremely valuable point to be learned from the post is that selective reporting can make black seem like white or ignorance seem like bliss. This is particularly true if the claims aren't investigated, but even with only valid claims, one-sided reporting can still misrepresent the overall situation. (Take the recent example of the Cheney hunting accident. Someone could write "Dick Cheney went out in the woods and shot Harry Whittington in the head"--which is verifiable as true, but misleads because it doesn't tell the entire story.)

Less critical, but still important, is being aware of common debunking/evaluative sites like snopes.com and truthorfiction.com, and checking out suspicious claims, especially those without dates. (For example, the numbers given in the congress example and stated as 'last year' are identical to the ones cited in 1999--coincidence?)

Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics, a tiny book with cartoons that's in its gazillionth edition, discusses many tricks used to distort with numbers, and how to spot when they're being used.

Kevin Connery wrote:
Darrell Huff's How to Lie with Statistics, a tiny book with cartoons that's in its gazillionth edition, discusses many tricks used to distort with numbers, and how to spot when they're being used.

I heard that book was on the Enron bestseller list..... ;-)