Hacker News Reader

Comment by btown | Hacker News Reader

Wow, pretty blatant stuff here. Forged signatures! But some of this could have been prevented. For instance, one of the defrauded equity investors was apparently promised a guaranteed 8% annual return, and was asked to wire money in advance of deal documentation [0]... both of which should have immediately been red flags.

Raw press release here. [1]

[0] Jensen complaint: https://s3.amazonaws.com/arc-wordpress-client-uploads/adn/wp...

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/former-ceo-alaska-based...

View on HN

This certainly begs the question as to whether she sought out the FCC position in hopes of directing Federal money towards projects like hers. It seems like she was desperate to cover up her fraud for 2 years, and especially around the time she took her post in the FCC.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/16137/begs-the-q...

We lost. You'll feel better if you give up, too.

Honesty it makes more sense in the modern usage. Assuming something which should have been proven seems like the opposite of begging for [someone to ask] a question.

In the original idiom, the "begging" is for acceptance of the speaker's claim on its face, rather than by "earning" agreement with supporting evidence and reasoning.

The "begging" is a mistranslation of medieval Latin petitio, "logical postulate", as if it were classical Latin petitio, "begging".

The idiom descends in a continuous scholarly tradition from Aristotle and his original Greek refers more plainly to "assuming the original [conclusion]".

See https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=2290 .

Oh I'm not trying to feel better, I'm trying to help people understand why they say the things they say. And a lot of people don't know about rhetoric.

I don't think what you linked has anything to do with why. The why is straight-forward: what the phrase means in formal logic is not intuitive, and how people use the phrase colloquially is intuitive.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com