I think they are both technically lying, but I would say a lie is something very direct, where misleading is more of a calculated phychological maneuver...still a lie nonetheless IMO.

of course it depends on the situation but i generally feel misleading is often worse than lying... the extra points for misleading come in during all the cold calculated efforts to manipulate.

The biggest difference is how it is structured, for example, Mislead usually from my experience is more towards omitting the parts of the truth, lying is usually trying to avoid telling the truth. eg. Hey Hamby is quoting the bible now and trying to convert people, the truth: Hamby is quoting the bible and showing the errors to try to convert people to atheism. Lying: Hamby is a chrisitian, I think that's the major difference, your omitting parts of the truth to make it seem how you want it to seem without directly lying about it all.

Yes, I think the general purpose of misleading is to dispense generally correct but incomplete information such that you get what you want but you can't be accused of outright lying since the things that you DID say were true in and of themselves.

I worked for a company once where I was responsible for forecasting revenue. The general manager of our particular office was extremely aggressive in her opinions about what revenue was going to be coming in. She would often have me bump certain chunks of revenue to more favorable outlooks even though she didn't have any concrete indications (like a signed contract, for example) to back it up. She would say "Oh, I talked to our contact at Potential Client X and things look really good", which may have been true but according to our revenue forecasting procedures it didn't warrant improving the outlook. And if the revenue fell through, she would always blame it on the contact. Essentially she was playing a shell game with our revenue forecasts because she was terrible at her job and didn't know any other way to do it.

If a person intentionally does either then there's no semantic difference and it just boils down to how whoever is saying it wants to style their comment.

When you want to say however that a person did something with the best of intentions but in doing so unintentionally lied to others who then followed his advice or leadership in the matter, then "misled" is probably the term you'll opt for, since the nominative form "liar" is pejorative (implies strong condemnation of the person) while the form "misleader" implies nothing so drastic. In fact I don't think I've ever heard it.

It's one of those ones where you have to say "give me the context" and then decide if the statement quoted is a genuine attempt to describe a sequence of events without apportioning too much blame on the instigator or, on the other hand, a blatant snow-job.

Boon Docks, yes. It would be a lie. But since it's not an intentional one on your part you would be most likely reported as having "misled" others in your assertion, at least by anyone observing the situation neutrally.

But the term "lie" still also applies to you - and the person who walked you into it - and anyone aggrieved at your false assertion would be technically correct, if a little harsh, in calling you a liar.

I manipulated the question in three ways:

1) I called it "the invasion and occupation" instead of the "War in Iraq," which is the official name for it.  Invasion and occupation implies that we are the aggressors and instigators.  (Of course, I believe we are both, but the official story is that we're not.)

2) I only gave two choices, either one indicting.

3) This one is the really cool one.  I asked, "Is it fair to say" instead of "do you think that."  I wasn't technically asking for your opinion, but once you answer that it's fair to say, I will be able to say that it's your opinion.  I used soft words that would allow you to hedge, but once you have answered, it becomes obvious what your opinion is, and I can use it.

Well, okay. But I still think that the garden variety use of one's brain, as well as an unwillingness to dance-around the bush, still defeats this kind of soft manipulation anyway (it does in sales. I guess it's good for retailers in that regard, then, that so many people are rather dumbed down).

For example, if was strongly opinioned pro-war, I'd just have said:

1) George Bush isn't a liar. He's a real American hero! He loves Jesus, just like me, and I feel like he knows me. I could have a beer and play poker with that guy, y'know? Saddam was evil, and he got what he deserved, and now the Iraqis are forever endebted to us for saving their sorry asses.

This is a painfully accurate representation of the thought process of much of the midwest U.S....*sigh*

That's rather interesting (intuitively, it's what I'd have expected, for some reason). Any idea what the sample size was, and what the percentages were of how many people performed according to the temperature of the drink?

I know that word tricks work in sales, but in my experience, they only work on specific demographs (and then there are certain word tricks and impulse techniques that work better or worse on different sub-demographs). 'You see why this has good value, right?' sold me more extended warranties (...Yes, I'm ashamed of myself) on MP3 electronics / headphones through bouncy, low-attention span girls in a day than most people would get in half a week. 'You understand that we can't help you if you don't purchase this, right?' was a real whammy on elderly customers.

Nothing got to some people, though. Successful-looking middle aged guy? Forget it. Oilfield grunt visiting for his weekly toy? Move along. Know-it-all techno-geek? Pfft, good luck. That's what I meant to articulate: in my experience, people with high self-esteem, high awareness and/or a solid head on their shoulders don't often fall for these simple tricks.

Sadly...a lot of people share that opinion here in North Florida as well.

I understand why a lot of old people turn rethuglican, but the thing about Florida that puzzles me is how much of the Hispanic population voted for Bush.  It's baffling, considering he's the guy who wants to build a Great Wall of Texas and give border patrols orders to shoot to kill.

Wow. Watch this:

This guy explains all the stuff we're talking about scientifically, and perfectly soundly.

He's just saying the term is broad and can be misleading ... moderate what ? .... 

There's nothing stopping you going into a bar in drag asserting the fact that you're not really a woman. Sorry, but you can't avoid the question of intention -

- especially in drag!

I was browsing through thunderf00t's channel on YouTube when I saw this. I've seen this footage before, but only in parts, never with a full explanation or the full audio.

CAUTION: I think this video is important to watch, but DO NOT watch this in the presence of anyone you'd feel ashamed to shed some tears in front of.

Really? cause as far as history is concerned... Living in Peace is the real defect -_-

No difference, except in the case when those doing the misleading have been mislead themselves by an outright liar.