Those who mock Mr Bush's intellect might be surprised by the following:


The Onion 1 August 2001

[Bush Finds Error In Fermilab Calculations]

BATAVIA, IL--President Bush met with members of the Fermi National
Accelerator Laboratory research team Monday to discuss a mathematical
error he recently discovered in the famed laboratory's "Improved
Determination Of Tau Lepton Paths From Inclusive Semileptonic B-Meson
Decays" report.

"I'm somewhat out of my depth here," said Bush, a longtime Fermilab
follower who describes himself as "something of an armchair
physicist." "But it seems to me that, when reducing the perturbative
uncertainty in the determination of Vub from semileptonic Beta
decays, one must calculate the rate of Beta events with a standard
dilepton invariant mass at a subleading order in the hybrid
expansion. The Fermilab folks' error, as I see it, was omitting that
easily overlooked mathematical transformation and, therefore,
acquiring incorrectly re-summed logarithmic corrections for the
b-quark mass. Obviously, such a miscalculation will result in a
precision of less than 25 percent in predicting the resulting path of
the tau lepton once the value for any given decaying tau neutrino is
determined."

The Bush correction makes it possible for scientists to further study
the tau lepton, a subatomic particle formed by the collision of a tau
neutrino and an atomic nucleus.

Bush resisted criticizing the Fermilab scientists responsible for the
error, saying it was "actually quite small" and that "anyone could
have made the mistake."

"High-energy physics is a complex and demanding field, and even top
scientists drop a decimal point or two every now and then," Bush
said. "Also, I might hasten to add that what I pointed out was more a
correction of method than of mathematics. Experimental results on the
Tevatron accelerator would have exposed the error in time, anyway."

Fermilab director Michael Witherell said the president was being too
modest "by an order of magnitude."

"In addition to gently reminding us that even the best minds in the
country are occasionally fallible, President Bush has saved his
nation a few million dollars," Witherell said. "We would have made
four or five runs on the particle accelerator with faulty data before
figuring out what was wrong. But, thanks to Mr. Bush, we're back on
track."

"It's true, I dabbled in the higher maths during my Yale days," said
Bush, who spent three semesters as an assistant to Drs. Kahsa and
Slaughter at Yale's renowned Sloane High-Energy Physics Lab. "But I
didn't have the true gift for what Gauss called 'the musical language
in which is spoken the very universe.' If I have any gift at all,
it's my instinct for process and order."

Continued Bush: "As much as I enjoyed studying physics at Yale, by my
junior year it became apparent that I could far better serve humanity
through a career in statecraft."

While he says he is "flattered and honored" by the tau-neutrino
research team's request that he review all subsequent Fermilab
publications on lepton-path determination, Bush graciously declined
the "signal honor."

"This sort of thing is best left to the likes of [Thomas] Becher and
[Matthias] Neubert, not a dilettante such as myself," Bush said. "I
just happened to have some time on the plane coming back from the
European G8 summit, decided to catch up on some reading, and spotted
one rather small logarithmic branching-ratio misstep in an otherwise
flawless piece of scientific scholarship. Anyone could have done the
same."

© Copyright 2001 Onion, Inc., All rights reserved.
http://www.theonion.com/

I'm a Bush supporter, but...isn't theonion.com a sattirical publication? (I remember reading something in Reader's Digest - an editor's response to a reader's letter about the Harry Potter author being a Satanist. The reader's source was theonion.com.)

I'm a Bush supporter, but...isn't theonion.com a sattirical publication?

Yes, this article is slander, rather humorous slander, I must admit, but slander nonetheless.

>slander

and Vernon's subjectification is irony! let's sue him too.
-ron o.

this article is slander

Aside from the fact that you mean libel, can attributing great mental acumen to someone be considered defamation?

can attributing great mental acumen to someone be considered defamation?

When it's obviously extreme sarcasm, yes.

Aside from the fact that you mean libel

Do I? slander - the utterance of false charges or misrepresentations which defame and damage another's reputation I suppose you mean he done did in his reputation himself

obviously extreme sarcasm

Tone of voice? I didn't use any tone of voice!

the utterance of slander as opposed to a written statement as you will find in the definition of libel.

obviously extreme sarcasm

Tone of voice? I didn't use any tone of voice!

Not you, the Onion article!

the Onion article

They didn't use any tone of voice, either.

Hence, libel v. slander.

If memory serves, in olden legal-usage a "slander" was oral and a "libel" was written -- but the law (in my state, at least) no longer treats these as separate categories. The current legal term is "defamation": you sue for defamation, not for slander or for libel.

In reply to:

---

can attributing great mental acumen to someone be considered defamation?

---

Another of A. P. Herbert's Misleading Cases would seem to be pertinent here:

http://www.kmoser.com/herbert/herb12.htm


Bingley

Keiva informs us: slander and libel (are) no longer treated as separate categories.

If this is true, then I (as a judicial dunce) think it is a mistake. That which someone says is over with once it is said - one can't mull over it like written defamation. Things spoken are off-the-cuff and must bow to the rhetorical situation. Thus, if people are quoted from conversations, then often things can be misconstrued to suit the purposes of those prosecuting. With libel the intent of the perpetrator should be far more clean cut In addition, slander can rarely (except perhaps for public figures) have as great an effect as libel has both on the victim and any of his/her contemporaries who may read it. I rest my case.

>Those who mock Mr Bush's intellect may .....
...have a good laugh at this article. The mere idea that Mr. Bush would in his wildest dreams be capable of solving a particle physics problem, never mind meeting the press with such exquisite elocution is certainly worth a laugh.
Good ol' sticky fingers Bush is probably not in command of his own bladder if the content and delivery of his rhetoric is any measure.
I think it is priceless that any article with a date at the top and cunning wording can receive recognition for being some kind of 'truth'. Year after year foreign onlookers watch as the American people are spoon feed pureed news for the masses. The demonisation of Bin Laden is a prefect example. Ask the clerk in your supermarket or the lawyer next door, all will agree this is an evil man who must be stopped. But what did he do? The answer - provide a good target onto which America could fire off political missiles. If they believe that he had anything to do with the bombing of some out-of-way US embassy then they haven't yet realized that the world's mass media is under control by a religious and political monopoly - that's right, it's the Muslim's arch-enemy. On the otherhand America as "an act of retaliation" for the bomb purposely planted next to the embassy by their own government (yes, it may not be on CNN, but it's no secret) bombed a medical factory in a completely different country, again with not the slightest connection to poor Mr Bin Laden. This discrimination is ongoing by the way - don't think things are looking rosy now. Just a few weeks ago fathers, brothers and sons disappeared from the streets of Italy on the pretext that 'they know Bin Laden'.
As for the destinctly lowbrow president - he should be up for the prize as Nostradamus's third Antichrist by the end of his term (now that's what I call libel :-).
It's more than a bit of wool that must be pulled from the US public's eyes, to much to tackle - it's like an entire sheep station ;-)

I heard a very interesting piece on the radio a few weeks ago about slander and libel in Canada. The gist of it was that Canadian/British laws are very, very different from the US rules. Therefore, though I know little of Canadian laws regarding libel or slander, I know that what little I know is not at all relevant in the US.

However, since I have been inundated by US mass media since my birth, it is likely that I have picked up more informal knowledge about US libel/slander/defamation laws that Canadian ones! [argh]

I loved the Wooly summation, Mr B! and this rang a bell, in particular:

"We have had in this case the advantage of the expert testimony of nineteen well-known writers and authors, fourteen literary critics, seven editors, and two philologists. And the one thing that emerges from this mass of informed opinion is that the expression complained of must be the most remarkable word in common use to-day. For though each of these authorities came prepared with a full and impressive theory of the origin and significance of the word, no two of these explanations were in any respect the same...."

Now if he had only asked for expert witnesses from the ranks of AWADtalk...!

According to this theory the divisions of the human race are not two, but three -- the lowbrow, the high-lowbrow, or broadbrow (or those of an intelligence and tolerance superior to the average), and the highbrow, who, though not necessarily more gifted than the second class, has in an intellectual sense the defects of character or outlook sufficiently suggested by the expressions 'prig', 'Pharisee', and 'smug'.

His Lordship misses the boat here only in that he bungles the opportunity to promulgate the term 'mezzobrow' for the middle category.

Mencken Amer. Lang. Suppl. I. 325 The search for a term to designate persons neither high-brows nor low-brows has led to the suggestion of mizzen-brow and mezzo-brow... but they have not caught on.

the opportunity to promulgate the term 'mezzobrow'...

yeahbut. It's got 3 syllabubs - cain't do that

I must say that I surprised that anybody could mistake the irony obvious in this "news" item. There is none in the foloowing news item, which also relates very directly to the defense of the President:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-2001301335,00.html

Missiles aimed at the United States and shot down by its proposed defensive shield could explode instead over Europe or Canada, according to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Scientists have calculated that a missile shot down en route from Iraq to Washington could hit Britain.

What are friends for?

Indeed®

But those of us from other parts of the world fear the fall out from other Bushwacky forin policy far more, since the chance of global warming is infinitely greater than a missile ever hitting another missile fired in anger within the forseeable technological future! You don't need to be a maths genius to come to this conclusion either - just add up the number of missiles proposed to be deployed, and balance that against their need to multiple target incoming missiles and their proven susceptibility to thousands of kevlar proxies scattered as decoys... no, us UKns won't be losing much sleep over this, I reckon

....won't be losing much sleep over this

Although the Bush stance on 'weapons of mass-destruction' is indeed unnerving, the direct results of the refusal to ratify a UN bill concerning the control of small-arms will no doubt have a more immediate affect. The US have thus shown their support for a homegrown weapons industry and for the products thereof, which are responsible for the most war-related and violent deaths in the world today - not H bombs or missiles. Then a moral stand is made on stem-cell research - ich fass es nicht.

Bush has the moral fibre of a rice cracker!

I don't want to get into any political debate, but I have a question.

Though I don't totally support Bush's propsal to spend so much money on a missle-defense program, how else do you defend against "rogue" nations like Iraq and North Korea, who we know have nuclear capabilities, without some type of missle defense program. Because they're "rogue" nations (Hussein is a tyrannical jerk and you can't refute that) you can't exactly tell them to stop with a simple ABM-type treaty. They won't listen.

There's always the old Curtis LeMay strategy: Bomb 'em back to the Stone Age.

> they can go ahead with ploughing the billions required into their mates' defence companies

YES! And that is the sole reason!

Jazzo regurgitates: Hussein is a tyrannical jerk

I wouldn't want to have him baby-sit my child, fair enough - but then I wouldn't leave my sister alone with Clinton either. Try, if you will, for a moment to put yourself in HIS shoes and see things from his side of the fence instead of granting a 'Yes' and 'Amen' to your government because CNN says he's a very bad man, because he treats his people poorly. Who has sanctioned hisgovernment year after year? Don't you see that the U.S. demonises the Arabic states and their leaders in order to have a good excuse to war-monger without public pressure. Put down that ozzie and open your mind a tad. Far from so-called rogue nations being the main problem, it is U.S. unilateralism, too often fixed in obsessions and objectives, whose trajectory gives most cause for concern.

>Put down that ozzie...

well, I'm loath to interject a question concerning usage into these fascinating philippics, but what does "ozzie" mean in this context? I thought an ozzie was an Australian....

>I don't want to get into any political debate, but...
>I have no desire to get into a political fracas over this, but...
>I'm loath to interject a question concerning usage, but..

these constructions are all nice examples of one form of the rhetorical device known as apophasis (denial). [yart]

This whole thread is, by default, political in nature. Since there appear to be none of us who is prepared to defend M. Bush except in very specific instances where the facts stated are indubitably incorrect, it can hardly be called a political argument.

In the US versus Iraq debate, you have a nonentity seemingly incapable of truly original thought versus a very cunning tyrant who has proven himself capable of a very original approach to what he sees as threats to his power base and, for that matter, his life.

If Dubya gets the axe at the next election, he goes into retirement and sets up the George W. Bush Presidential Library, surely the only one which is likely to consist mainly of Donald Duck comics. On the other hand, if Saddam Hussein is retired, it's likely to be more than just his presidency that he'll lose.

Dubya worries me because of what he's capable of doing through ignorance and error. Saddam Hussein worries me because of what he's likely to do to survive ...

Jeez, can't bring myself to write in "defense" of anyone but our Tone seems to be getting on with GW just fine. I can't believe that our "special relationship" would result in any deflected missals on our patch. GW only has to say the word, just like Ole Bill before and we're always "happy to help"!

A Cynic (distant relative to Ron O and ilk)

Any significance in the colour of the page - brown?

I am so impressed by what people who have posted on this thread, have said and illumined for me about our missile defense system. I would read the New YOrk Times and listen to NPR but I could never get the clarity that I have gotten here. So please LET US NOT "OUTLAW" POLITICAL DEBATES ON THIS BOARD. FOR SOME OF US THIS MIGHT BE MORE ENLIGHTENING THAN WHAT IS BEING REGURGITATED FOR US BY THE SO-CALLED NEWS ANALYST. THE TOPICS DISCUSSED HERE ARE IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US. WE SHOULD USE ALL MEANS POSSIBLE, INCLUDING THE USE OF THIS BOARD, TO OPEN MINDS AND I HOPE, TO MAKE THIS DEMOCRACY MOVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TOWARD AN IDEAL ONE.
WE HAVE ALL THE FREEDOM PROVIDED BY TECHNOLOGY, ON THIS BOARD, TO SKIP WHAT WE DO NOT RELISH AND ONLY READ THE ONES WE ARE INTERESTED IN.
IMHO

dear wordcrazy,
I think that what some of us have objected to in the past is the kind of propaganda for a cause [shalom] that we have been subjected to. some of the rants in this thread could be so characterized as well. there are a myriad of other boards you can go to for that. but that's just *my opinion.

Most people on this board,if not all, are well-read, intelligent, and decent people. Even in the rants of some of them I see a benefit--an enlightenment of others point of view. (Know thy enemy) I trust the people here are not naive to swallow everything they read, even here.
And you say there are other boards for this kind of debate. Yes there are but if someone does not have the time to peruse all the boards that are out there, or not trust them, and if a thread on this board comes along that offers a democratic discourse, what is the harm?
One can always hijack a thread if it so objectionable to them. If we allow some word games here (which I enjoy) but does not add an iota to "word knowledge" (with exceptions of course) surely we can have room for politics where words (is) an important tool and where our democracy can flourish or die.
IMHO

Aye, there's the tub - whose democracy?

Again, I reiterate...read Thomas Paine's Common Sense...that democracy! 'Twas the way it
were supposed to be!

And, at least, they won't have to worry about funding for the George W. Bush Presidential Library...
They'll only have to buy one book!

Once again, dear Max, your knowledge outstrips mine--who's Marat, please?
And--I hope you weren't hurt when you slipped in that tub...

Done in by a woman - tush, tush, sweet Charlotte.

I believe Marat was a big noise in the French revolution. From memory he was a fan of Mme Guillotine! ("Chop off her head" cried the Red Queen) He was killed by a woman when bathing ... his sweetie?
I remember a rather famous painting of the scene. Marat in a free-standing tub and a woman behind him, approaching with a dagger ... or has my memory gone bye-bye?
Just showing off, Jackie. I had a French teacher-of-history very "up" on the French Revolution!And even at that see how little I recall. Ah, well.[/white