Replies

Your definition sounds a lot like "over-presenting" than "over-REpresenting." The dictionary definitions I have reviewed quickly leave room for doubt as to his meaning. In any event, using your definition, what Gore proposes is essentially to lie about the importance of the issue by presenting it in a way that suggests a critical situation when it does not exist. If such a critical situation existed, how could one OVER-represent it?

For example, how could I OVER-warn you about a bridge out ahead when the consequence of continuing on the road is certain injury or death? On the other hand, I could easily OVER-warn you about the dangers of listening to the radio while driving, because the risk is not all that great.

Am I still wrong (as my wife might tell me)?

No, I don't think you're wrong, but it's getting a bit away from my original concern. You're making the case that Al Gore is a liar, and that this speech is part of that strategy. I entirely agree. However, articulating a strategy by which you plan to lie an excessive number of times is not, in and of itself, telling a lie.

We had Freepers here going ecstatic over what they thought was Gore saying that lying is okay. But that's not what he's done, and we'll not do ourselves any favors shouting to the world that he has. All he's done is justify the frequency and volume level with which he shouts his tale to the world. We recognize the tale to be made up of lies, but he hasn't admitted that they are, so why would be compelled to justify them?