Talk:Non-denial denial/Archive 2

Untitled
This article just seems to be a collection of POV examples. Perhaps just the definition should be kept, and then moved to Wiktionary? -- Khym Chanur

It isn't a dictionary term so has no place in a dictionary. It is a political science and media term. And the example are universally regarded as examples of the phenomenon of issuing apparent denials that in reality are laced with get-out clauses. FearÉIREANN 19:29, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Non-denial denials and their variants are seem as examples of public relations and political spin, namely the conveying of an ambiguous message in an apparently unambiguous manner than contains enough 'get out clauses' to enable the person using the language to apparently break their word if necessary with the explanation that the listener had misunderstood the words and read into them a certainty that, when closely examined, proved not to be there in reality."

Could we rephrase this? The sentence is a bit too long, and there are parts I don't quite understand, so I don't want to do it myself. --KF 00:12, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Definition wrong for myself on the autism spectrum and perhaps for others too?
The definition given seems to be how these statements come across to people who aren't autistic (which is the vast majority of people). It seems my autism may enable me to detect non-denial so-called denials straight off, or at least some of them. To me, after hearing people claim that someone has denied something that it is plain and obvious to me from the start they have not, a non-denial denial seems to be a statement that, *at first hearing*, is plainly and obviously not a denial as it seems I automatically carefully parse statements by default (that aren't things such as throw-away greetings or statements as to the weather being good or otherwise which require no parsing) and then later, if at all, consider what the context might have been that I usually miss immediately, only to find that other people appear to think there was ever any direct, clearcut and unambiguous denial of some allegation or accusation that, when informed that this is what other people, wrongly, think I then look at the statement again and cannot see any denial whatsoever ever being in it or ever having been in it that just is not there and never was there. There just is no denial at all - it is completely obvious they were making a non-denial and that the statement is still correct even if the allegation is correct which it almost certainly is. It is just impossible to read a denial in there at all that other people appear to see. Where is it? It just is not there.

For example, "I can tell you that I never lied". Means of course I lied, because I can, indeed, tell you that I didn't lie, it doesn't mean I didn't lie and doesn't at all say that I didn't lie (or indeed that I did), instead I *can* tell you this (non-autistic people: pay attention to the exact wording please! such inattentive people grrr(!)), can expresses ability to do something, and I am able to tell you I didn't lie just like I can tell you absolutely anything at all as long as I speak this with my mouth or communicate it in any way at all to someone and if that is done, then I can tell them. Anyone can tell anyone anything, that is anything that they are physically capable of communicating to anyone else, regardless of whether it is true or not, or anything in between, and therefore the statement that they can tell them that is true since they can indeed tell them, it doesn't mean that what they tell them is true, contrary to what (it seems non-autistic) people wrongly assume. By the way, this isn't what I would say, it is me interpreting other people who make what are not denials. I would tell the truth, and then probably not be believed when I say it is truth because it is so rare to find a person actually doing that. So, if I was going to deny, I would never lie in the first place and therefore have no need to deny. And I wouldn't say "I can tell you... " unless it was a genuine something that I can tell you, and not a non-denial of never lying (whatever that means as there is a nice double negative plus a third negative then there in effect as "never" means "not ever" - so work that triple negative out).

I can tell you that I *never* lied - well maybe I did lie on that occasion just that I *never* did so elsewhere. Or maybe I lied (as in lay) on a bed and didn't mean I didn't tell you fibs. Who can tell? Totally ambiguous, not a clearcut statement at all - no idea why or how anyone can ever think that as there are just so many meanings in it - and it doesn't deny anything. It just says they can tell you that - and they can, so they are not lying there. They never said "I never lied". I never lied is a denial. I can tell you that I never lied, or I can tell you I never lied, they are both completely different to "I never lied". That last one is an explicit statement. I can tell you etc. is not direct, it isn't clearcut, it is not unambiguous, I have no idea why people think there is some denial there but omitting these important and crucial opening words and concentrating, or being distracted to the red herring of, the words that follow it that are clearly not denied at all. And never were, don't know who could read into it that they were.

So, the definition of non-denial denial is totally wrong from my perspective as it seems clear I don't read or hear it in the way non-autistic people do. I got accused of "semantics" when writing to one council official many years ago, before my autism was diagnosed many years later. It wasn't "semantics" at all - it wasn't absolutely crucial as the statute used a totally different word and therefore meant something completely different from the word they used instead, even if they wrongly thought they were the same. I guess I like standing on pinheads, splitting hairs and picking nits. Nits are there to be picked!

aspaa (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)