General discussion of moderation procedures

the format was to demonstrate the parts that went unanswered versus the answers that were given, it was directed at Jerry in answer to his implication that all he had to do was "*chuckle*" to make refutations of his points go away. and doesn't your post come very close to a personal attack on the poster and not the message? thanks for your inputRAZD - "The king of the whacked message format"

sorry, not a complaint, just saw a little chain that wanted pulling

excuse me while I pick on my particular bone of contention here.there are also occasions where some says "you said {this}" and you personally know it is false, but in order to demonstrate that as a fact you have to enter every single post you have ever made in evidence. to anyone else it looks like a "he said\she said" bickering and buries the topic in an unrelated issueon the other hand it is relatively simple to challenge that person to substantiate the claim, for if it is true it should be demonstrable.it seems to me that it should be board policy that such challenges need to be met with substantiation or retraction of the statement.and that anything less should be unnaceptable. from anyone.lying is by definition intentional falsehoods, and while it may be difficult to demonstrate intention whenever falsehoods are presented, it cannot be anything but intentional when the person fails to deal with the issue when challenged to do so.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

um, no it isn't.this has been my beef all along - that substantiation of a (false) position was not required when it should have been required.disproving it meant proving a negative, but it should have been easy to substantiate the (false) position if it was true.I also said then that failure to substantiate or recant the claim showed intent behind the (false) claim, thus at that point it became a lie.for this I got suspended

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

welcome to the club

lol, my thin skin on this one. I also predicted that failing to deal with this issue would not resolve the problem.

in my experience this results in (1) the thread being tied up with unneccesary posts, (2) the thread being closed and (3) both the perp and the responder being suspended.I have to agree with Rrhain (especially if what we are dealing with is a assertion that has been repeated) it should be easy to show either(1) that it is based on facts (by the perp) or
(2) that it is false (by the responder)and while it may not be possible to do one (due to the problem with proving of false negatives), failure to do the other should be sufficient evidence of {with whom} the problem lies (ahem) exists.this procedure should be easy to implement with a side thread that removes the issue from taking up the thread topic to the detriment of other posters.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

sigh. once more. the person in question (not syamsu) kept saying that I said things I hadn't.so badly off the mark that the purported statements were ludicrous imho.the only ways to "confront" such a situation is to (a) put into evidence everything single thing I have ever said, or (b) challenge them to substantiate their claim. what appalled me was the total abject failure of any single admin to say"okay {X}, substantiate your claim"when doing so would have resolved the issue of whether the claim was true or false.it was only after repeated failures of {X} to substantiate his claim, total lack of support on having that done, and subsequent reposting of the same old falsehoodam I wrong or is this not part of the forum guidelines? scientists are human too. sorry. you do see scientists asking others to substantiate their positions. I've known and debated with many such and not had this problem, and this was not a creationist (or equal). Would it be better to call them self-deluded?so far the only valid conclusions one can make from the experience are:(1) it is okay to lie, infact it appears almost encouraged.
(2) it is not okay to point it out, because the messanger will be shot.there are three fatal flaws to this approach(1) it doesn't solve the problem, so it will continue to re-occur (which it did) and involve others (which it did)
(2) the person 'being shot' knows they are being punished for the wrong doings of another. the likelyhood of a civil debate between the two people drops to zero instead of being resolved
(3) it neuters the forum guidelinesI've had enough of this issue to last me a while, not because it's resolved, but because I don't see it moving in that direction at all, so the only thing I can do is support the next victim,when it happensagain(as it will continue to happen).

substantiate a claim by you that a person saying "you said {V}" is not true.can you prove you never said {V}?

it can't be a lie without it also being a misrepresentation. perhaps if the issue of misrepresentation were dealt with properly we wouldn't get to the issue of repeated misrepresentations that grow into lies.

he put words in my mouth I did not sayhe used gratuitous insult, and I challenge you to find in any of my posts any comments that come close to you will also see that he called me a liar (surprise?)now read my reply to one of his laced with insults
EvC Forum: the evolution of clothes?and the {{{one}}} you will see is" in response to a obviously sarcastic comment that he was "all ears"I don't claim to be perfect, but there is an obvious (to me anyway) degree of difference between these levels of responses.but you could prove me wrong by making a list from each of us.I also note that it was only at the point where I did ask for admin that action was taken. I won't say what I think of the action taken, as I think that is already been made clear.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I thank you for your well considered and balanced response to the issue.

I've already done that on another thread. Why should I keep repeating myself, after all you're the person that said absence of {X} is proof of {Y}.... I think you get the drift.

and when you never get an answer while said person keeps claiming to have answered you, what's the next step?

do you think jerry's dismissal of the arguments of others is (a) a resolution of the issues left unanswered and (b) put's jerry's position in any better light?I'm curious, because the only impression I get from it is that he is using an excuse to avoid an issue he cannot or doesn't want to answer.like photons being particles and never waves, so they aren't "realized" into particles by some "supreme observer"like a complete absence of any fossil or other evidence for a {just created} state that humans have since "devolved" from on their way to "mutational meltdown"like the computation of molecular probabilities based on a strict order of formation rather than any bond being formed in any order to reach the same resultand these are only from my direct experience and don't involve similar points raised by othersdoes it also resolve the issue for the next time you are discussing things with said person and they point out that you ran from the last confrontation?it seems to me that asking the other person to substantiate their claim (in this type of instance) is so easy a step to take that it is silly not to do it and actually RESOLVE the issue.can you tell me what is wrong with
http://EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies. -->EvC Forum: contracycle, clothes, humans, and bare lies.as a way of actually documenting some false representations while also publicly challenging the perpetuator to substantiate his other false claims (that can only be proven true, if there is any substance to them)?it removes the issue from the other topics and addresses specific points, imho, and is otherwise no different than wj's responses to my hypothetical position.just curious.