h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3254852.stm

The quote that won the 'Foot in Mounth' award for incomprehensible speech is: "Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Genius. Pure genius.


Geggs

The web address you used as a reference is set up by a secret society meant to disparage politicians, much like the anti-matter equivalent of the CIA.

Really? And there was me thinking it was the BBC News site.

Ho hum.


Geggs

Does this mean a war between Britain and the US?
I mean, should I sell stocks and shares and stuff like that, now?

mr. Rumsfeldt should take it as a great honour. I suspect he was actually trying to win that award; and its not an easy one to win.

still not quite up there with Dubya's " the trouble with the french is that they don't have a word for entrepreneur!"

...or the Palestinians and Israelis sould sit down and talk about like good Christians

I didn't know they had a C*** of the year award

I must be a freak cos it made sense to me

The frightening fact of the matter is that it DOES make sense!,...doesn't it??

Logically I'd say Yes but knowing the known that i have of mr rumsfeldt i just know that he has some known unknown up his sleeve

I think it was that he was trying to intimate that the more we know of theunknown unknowns the more we can set these with he known unknowns and knowns knowns, so we can know what we know about the unknown unknowns, to allow us to prepare for the unknown events that mighten occur, and, of course, the more we know about the unknown events, the less of the unknown unknowns are really a threat to us.

2legs You're not related to Sir Humphry of "Yes Minister" fame by any chance.

Well, and asides the most predicitible answer to such a question of an immediate denial, it is probably best that in relation to the formulation of the question you have just posed, that we consider exactly why, and whatsmore for what purpose such information as you might believe an answer to the question might disgorge to yourself would in itself serve a useful capicity in the function of its knowledge. Which isn't to say, of course, that disgorging an answer is always less helpful than having the knowledge of things you do not know, and, therefore, in reality, knowing we do not know, and coming to appreciate bo the range and depth of our knowledge of things we know and of those things which we do not know is itself a means to an end. Or, if you'd prefer, we could consider this as being that by knowing we do not know, we remove the need, or perhaps more acurately, 'percieved' need to know from being necessary to be forfilled in order that we have indeed arrived at a point which is where we, and specifically you, wished to be regarding the matter to which we have just addressed.

Sir Humphry is back with us

Well, and as I was saying, it is inevitible or at least predictible that often it is to regard the unknowns as knowns that leads to problems in ascenting and deliminating the exact level of our knowledge regarding the unknowns. For, if we think we know the unknowns, they are both pressumed to be known, and symultainiously, remain unknown till such ocasion as we know the unknown for certain on demonstration of the unknown aspects of what it is we think we know. This obviously creates a problem, that in knowning an unknown we often supose we know the unknown whilst actually not knowing that we still do not know the unknowns, which, thereofre have remained unknown despite seeming evidence, or at least suposition to the contory.

I have to totally disagree with that considering what I know. There are no knowns within our current knowledge (that we know of) that could possibly be known to have substantiated that which you now know. For instance, to say that all unknowns could be known would be like saying that all unknowns that we do not have knowledge of could be known under a model that supports, in no real terms, unknowable knowns. I think what you are trying to say, and I know this is unknown from a known aspect of our current knowledge, is that it would be impossible to assume any unknowns could be known if we ACCEPT that knowns are unknowable. Or am I mistaken?

(You don't know who I am)

Exactly as i was intimating, by knowing that which you have said we can postulate that those knowns that we know as a subset of unknowns and knowns necessarily divide the knowns and unknowns into knowns and unknowns, and to thereby predict that the unknowns shall always remain as such is like saying that the knowns are always knowns, if we can unknown a known, then surely we can known a unknown?

Einstein proved that knowing simultaneously two knowns speeding apart at the velocity of light means that we could not know their velocities or if they could be known. Now.. knowing this, two unknowns cannot form a part of the reality of knowable knowns because in no uncertain terms, velocities that are unknown cannot form knowable reality (except in known circumstances) search the web under 'theories of simultaneouty concerning known unknowable knowns'

http://slate.msn.com/id/2081042/#ContinueArticle

Rumsfeld's Existential Poetry. I sent this one going round the English Department at uni - they love it.! Genius.