Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Don't Piss Me Off (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Don't Piss Me Off
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I really find myself intrigued by all this.

It's kind of surreal to think about this message board and all the different personalities who have been posting here for years. I never think of any of it as "real" yet it does have its own history of sorts. It's funny to think that one day that history may span decades instead of a mere 6 years.

Judging by the profiles, it looks like there are basically three generations of posters. The first generation posters came in around 2000, the second generation came in around 2003 (such as myself) and I guess those who came subsequent could be seen as third generation. It's fascinating. I wonder if any anthropologists study the evolution of these message boards.

[ September 10, 2006, 12:16 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
Guys...please.

We've asked that the past not be dragged up, that personal conflicts not be raised, and that the previous OM not be discussed. All of those things are now happening.

Pete, if you want to fight with Mark about his prior decisions as OM, please don't do it here on the board.

I don't want to lock a thread responsibly discussing moderation policies and interpretation of Ornery rules. I will lock a thread that degenerates or continues to blithely go where it's been expressly asked not to go.

Honestly, can we be any clearer? [Mad]

I don't want to fight with Mark. But Red's accused xOM of running things fairly and reasonably, and that's not an accusation that I could let stand. [DOH] I think xOM's statement about how he blames anyone who is at the "center" of a controversy pretty much makes my point. So I'm done on that, unless Red has more debatable accusations of fair dealing, fair warning, etc. to drag in.

Paladine talks about "laws," but he isn't exactly showing where these procedures that he advocates are written anywhere. Ev was suspended for breaking written Ornery rules about motive inference ("liar/lying/" and all that yap I quoted on p1). OM gave him a 2nd chance, and Ev threw it back in OM's face, so OM took away the grace offer. Both Paladine and Red have conceded that there would be no injustice of "banning" Ev for what he said here.

[To Red and Paladine]: It's one frigging week, guys. If you blackmail them into cancelling the suspension, or dupe the Cards into dumping one or both OMs, or pass off Red's absolutely asinine suggestion that Ev has the right to break the rules again before being suspended as some sort of principle of "law," that will be sign that we're back to the old mob rule and cronyism.

[ September 10, 2006, 12:41 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have never interjected in these discussions previously. Frankly, I'm astonished. Is there really such outrage over the fact that when a member has posted something inappropriate (not in dispute as far as I can tell) and then flatly refuses to alter their behaviour, that there must be consequences of some kind for the rules to have meaning?

This is like having the judge offer you parole, and instead you talk about how much you can't wait to commit the offense some more. Is it any wonder that the result is a few days in holding for contempt?

Because if the law didn't hang em, then the next posse will go out and say, "Hang em, and Hang em high! There's no justice in Fort Grant!" And if there's no justice in Fort Grant, Cooper, there will be no statehood for this territory! - Pat Hingle "Hang Em High"

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paladine says he'd do the same if the roles were reversed, and I believe him, but he'd still be dead wrong. But since I do believe him, I see that I was probably wrong to accuse Paladine of of hypocrisy, and I apologize for that. Paladine has been kind and reasonable to me in the past and has stood up for me on numerous occasions.

Other remarks I stand by, and concur with Drake that this thread is a tempest in a teacup.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Laaa-aaame!

(that's -lame-, not -lamé-...)

In my opinion, there are a few people who deserve a good banning at least once a week. Some of you might even think me, for my wonderful, splendiferous "Open Thread" (which by the way, was as hilarious as this is pathetic...or useful...wait, did I just negate something? Whatever...it all depends on your point of view).

Yes, Ev pushes it, and so does Pete and I've had a couple fun tussles with both of 'em. Everyone else is just so darn reasonable or creepy or nice or haven't yet removed that stick from wherever that got jammed u-...but I digress.


Like KE said, Ev's a big boy and if this gets his underwear in a bunch then he's far more frail than I would've imagined. Pete, try not to call out too many pot's would you? You're embarrassing yourself.

I think the OM's are doing a fine job, a thankless job, and I job I wouldn't trust to anyone who wanted it.

Calling for them to quit is like telling a - damnit...I lost my analogy, but trust me, it was pretty sweet. It's like something idiotic, anyway. And paternalistically bemusing.

Methinks the old-time boys is getting a bit big for they's britches, but what the hey...every dog deserves his pompous, puffed up day, no? Even me!

So strained, pious demands for recompense over a miscarraige of justice don't just seem ridiculous to me, but farcical.

I fully the support the OM's even though they've warned me my fair share of times. They keep the peace, and every so often, if they have to smack someone upside head, so be it. They are not the end all of authority around here and they readily admit it.

But they do have a mean left hook when pushed, so keep on your toes, be civil, and stop wailing around like the Women of Sabine.

A week ban is a weak ban.

Meh.

[ September 10, 2006, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: canadian ]

Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pete at Home:
Other remarks I stand by, and concur with Drake that this thread is a tempest in a teacup.

Please Pete, stop l*ing about what I said. I never called this thread a tempest in a teacup. [Cool]
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL] Thank you for that perfect example of what I've been up against! I go nuts sometimes when I think no one else is seeing it.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yikes,

hmmm well I hope Ev hasn't decided to leave permanently. How could he handle having that much free time on his hands [Smile]

Personally I wouldn't have been thrilled had the same happened to me but what is done is done.

OrneryMod 2,

quote:

It is amazing to me that grown people need to be babysat in order not to call each other names.

I bet it's because we all missed nap time [Smile] quit calling each other names you 'poo poo heads' <ducks>

All we really need is an ice cream and a hug

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I go nuts sometimes when I think no one else is seeing it.
Well, that WOULD explain a lot.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Paladine says he'd do the same if the roles were reversed, and I believe him, but he'd still be dead wrong. But since I do believe him, I see that I was probably wrong to accuse Paladine of of hypocrisy, and I apologize for that. Paladine has been kind and reasonable to me in the past and has stood up for me on numerous occasions.
I appreciate that greatly.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I go nuts sometimes when I think no one else is seeing it.
Well, that WOULD explain a lot.
Cassandra syndrome. Beeing the only one who sees the bleeding obvious. You know how many movies there are on that theme? [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(that's -lame-, not -lamé-...) [LOL] , though I would like to see some proof, Canadian ... and stacks and stacks and stacks of citations!
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Having looked into the matter some more, I have revised my opinion. I now think that without question Ev was unjustly suspended. Supposedly Ornery Americans have certain qualities:

quote:
2. We don't like being spun. That doesn't mean we aren't sometimes fooled by the way reporters slant their stories, but when we find out how we've been manipulated, we get a little mad and we refuse to trust that writer, commentator, that magazine, that newspaper, that news network, or that politician again.
quote:
4. We believe that character matters -- our own character, the character of our leaders, and the character of our nation as a whole. We don't like bullies and cowards, liars and hypocrites, and we don't appreciate it when our leaders make our nation behave as if that were what Americans are.
It is quite clear that, given the level of Pete's misrepresentations not just of Ev, but of the Goodridge decision (my new information), Ev was just being an Ornery American. He did not like Pete's persistent attempts to spin what Ev and the Goodridge judgement said.

Nor do I.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So if someone misinterprets someone else's writing, that makes them a liar? If so, then I guess we can all start calling each other liars on a regular basis. Or we could understand that others may actually be perceiving these messages in the way they present them. Repeating back something that is told to you in your own words is an opportunity to adjust the message, not to get angry and inflame the situation.

You simply have to trust the other members of the community to reject unfair characterization of your message.

Calling other people liars accomplishes nothing of value - it is merely a demonstration of your own lack of emotional control and perspective.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OM wrote
quote:
When calling someone a liar, or calling their argument a lie, requires speculation of motive, then it's a clear violation of the rules of this forum.
This statement causes some serious problems for me.

1. If you define a lie as an intentional misrepresentation of truth, then by definition any time you call something a lie, you must speculate on the intent, or motive. In other words, calling someone a liar ALWAYS "requires speculation of motive" .

2. Following that logically derived conclusion, ANY accusation of lying is a violation of Ornery rules, according to the OM.

I am hereby making a declaration, not a threat:

When someone makes a statement in contradiction to firmly established facts, after that person has been informed of those facts, I may at my discretion accuse that person of lying.

If that gets me "suspended" until I promise I will never do that, then I don't think I want to be a part of Ornery any more.

I hope I have developed a reputation of establishing my facts carefully, and being open to the possibility that my sources or reasoning are faulty. But if I were to see a bald-faced lie, especially one misrepresenting my views, then I would want to have the proper words available to make my feelings clear. Calling it a distortion, prevarication, equivocation, or fib is not the same.

OM, if I have misunderstood somehow, please let me know.

If you can explain how this is different from what Ev said, I would like to hear that as well.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What changed my mind was not Pete's characterization of Ev's views. Those were, IMO, entirely unjustified. They were disrespectfull as well in that Pete simply ignored that fact that Ev directly contradicted him.

What changed my mind was Pete's misrepresentation of the Goodridge decision. That was a clearly laid out judgement which was carefully presented to avoid confusion. Pete has seized on a single phrase, taken out of context, and inferred a claim which was not made in the judgement, and which was directly contradicted in the very paragraph from which he quoted. (See "The Marriage Story" thread for details.)

I think if you are going to cite a source, you have a responsibility to get it right. This is particularly so as we cannot expect every member to chase of after every quote or citation to check it out for themselves. I think if you cannot be bothered doing that, you should be called on it. Everard did call Pete on it, and was simply ignored by Pete. Pete just went his merry way, and never bothered to recheck his claim, SFAI can tell.

In that context, Everard calling Peter a "liar" was entirely understandable. IF onerymod were going to suspend Ev for that, then they ought also to have suspended Pete for his willfull ignoring of "rule" 2. If they weren't going to do that, then they should have allowed Ev some leeway in view of the egregious nature of Pete's misrepresentations. As it was, they in effect advised Ev that Pete would be allowed to continue misrepresenting Ev and his sources with blatant disregard for truth, but that Ev would be suspended for calling Pete on it.

In Ev's position, I would have regarded that as an endorsement of a right to lie for Pete, together with a determination to protect Pete from any adverse consequences. I am sure that was not OM's intention, but if they let the sitation stand as it, that will be the effect of their action.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If something is "baldfaced" obviously not true, I'd personally post the evidence (quote myself and the other person) and let it stand for itself. If the evidence isn't enough to convince everyone then maybe it isn't as clearcut as I thought it was. If everyone else can see it's a lie then there's no point in me belaboring the point. If others see what you said and see what they claim you said and can see how you may fit the claim then how can you know the person is lying?

To me if someone publicly misrepresents me (even if it is a baldface lie) it is not too much to ask that I publicly state why it isn't true and leave the words about lies in private emails. Regardless of whether it's true or not, it's not conducive to the forum.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That baldfaced chick on the first Star Trek movie was pretty hot.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
velcro
Member
Member # 1216

 - posted      Profile for velcro   Email velcro   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LoverOfJoy,

I agree that your approach is better, and more conducive to harmonious posting. My natural inclination is to do the same.

But as I said, after I publicly state why a statement isn't true, I may at my discretion use the accurate, correct, and honest word for the statement, i.e. a lie.

If I am wrong, kick me off of Ornery. But if I am right, I should have no fear of calling it what it is.

If we made it a crime to accuse someone of slander or libel, wouldn't the world be a place more conducive to friendly communication? Couldn't the victim of slander just put the facts out and let the public decide? If you feel that is the case, then your argument makes sense.

Posts: 2096 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
LOJ, I entirely agree that as a first step, your suggestion is correct. However, Ev plainly felt that the pattern had been persistent. Once you lay out the case, and the misrepresentation is repeated, and repeated again on a different thread so you can't assume participants have read your rebutal, and repeated again and again when the topic comes up - at what point do you stop just laying out the evidence?

At some stage you have to just call a spade a spade.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
at what point do you stop just laying out the evidence?
It's worth noting that both Pete and Everard appear to be tireless in this regard.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pickled shuttlecock
Member
Member # 1093

 - posted      Profile for pickled shuttlecock   Email pickled shuttlecock   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's the "Oh, my HECK if I don't post a rebuttal someone might BELIEVE HIM!!!" syndrome.
Posts: 1392 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Ev had the evidence, then he would not have to repeat the "liar" accusation over and over and over, just as Tom C is doing here, even though he doesn't use the word.

I presented the Goodridge decision accurately. Tom is misrepresenting the conversation in order to paint me as dishonest. This is the game that he and Ev play on this -- accuse someone of lying over and over again.

Note that Ev doesn't present any evidence on the whole page that I quoted; just hurls his false accusation over and over again. See below.


Velcro:
quote:
But if I were to see a bald-faced lie, especially one misrepresenting my views, then I would want to have the proper words available to make my feelings clear. Calling it a distortion, prevarication, equivocation, or fib is not the same.
That's not what's going on here, Velcro. See below

quote:
If you can explain how this is different from what Ev said, I would like to hear that as well.
Can you honestly not see the difference? Look at this crap, and consider that he was doing it on multiple threads. Also consider that he only began screeching about this earlier on the thread when I caught him in a falsehood of his own, even though I didn't use the word lie, and approached it politely.

quote:
Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 03:08 PM
"Indeed not. Ev said that anyone who supports the FMA is an unamerican bigot." [note he actually did use the term "bigot" explicitly, and he strongly implied the "unamerican" part, though he did not use that word specifically]
Stop lying about what I said, Pete.
I said anyone who supports a particular wording (one that would even deny the ability of same sex couples to join in civil union or have any of the benefits of civil union) is a bigot. I've also said that support for the FMA is contrary to constitutional principles... I haven't said its "unamerican."
Edit: Hrm. I apparently turned the page. This is the last of three quick posts in succession, each of which points out a different area where pete is lying.
[ September 09, 2006, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Paladine
Member Member # 1932
posted September 09, 2006 03:46 PM
My earlier post wasn't intended to imply that Ev's beliefs are predicated upon a belief that those who oppose it are evil. Rather I intended to show that his statement gave reason to believe that those who oppose SSM oppose equality under the law and oppose the "tremendous good" of which he spoke, and that consequently a logical conclusion of his argument is that those of us who oppose SSM are (pretty close to) evil.
I don't necessarily believe that he made that conclusion or that it was a premise of his argument. I simply maintain that it's a logical conclusion one could reasonably draw from his remarks.
Posts: 1233 | Registered: Jul 2004 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 03:57 PM
Ev dodges the fact that he specifically said the word "bigot." He did not specifically say the word "unamerican," which is why I did not use quotes on the word, but he implied unamerican in a lot more obvious terms than the watered down statements he's offering here.

quote:
My earlier post wasn't intended to imply that Ev's beliefs are predicated upon a belief that those who oppose it are evil.

Exactly. Ev says horrid things, and when you call him on them, he tries to defend himself by saying that he doesn't really believe them. I don't care if he believes them. He should not say them.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:02 PM
"Ev dodges the fact that he specifically said the word "bigot.""
Don't lie about what I said, Pete. go back and reread my post at the top of this page, you liar. I did not dodge it all. I clarified the statement about who I consider to be a bigot.
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 04:04 PM
I said to Tom: "I made a similar comment at the time when you made it, and I'd said the same thing repeatedly about Andrew Sullivan when he made the same argument before you, back in the days before he became bitter and nasty, and adopted the Everard/Goodridge argument for ssm (because those who argue against it are evil)."
Ev/Godridge pro-ssm argument is "because those who argue against it are evil," In Goodridge terms, because the only reason to oppose ssm is animosity towards gays. Ev's defended the goodridge construction, and he takes it into further blood libels, saying that a defense of neutered marriage somehow magically increases hate crimes against gays.
Trying to bend the facts to twist what I said into a "lie," Ev pretends to think that "because" represents his motivation, rather than the argument. The sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense if you read it like that. Think harder, Ev.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:04 PM
" Ev says horrid things, and when you call him on them, he tries to defend himself by saying that he doesn't really believe them. I don't care if he believes them. He should not say them."
No. I do not defend them. I acknowledge what I've said. When I'm wrong, I apologize, unlike you. And when I've been misrepresented, I clarify, but, unlike what you claim I do, I do not "dodge." When the word usage is correct, I defend it.
In this case, Pete, you've lied repeatedly about what I've said, and I'm calling you on it.
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 04:08 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
I acknowledge what I've said. When I'm wrong, I apologize, unlike you.

You apologized to me once, and that was by email. And now you're back to the behavior you apologized for, like dog to vomit.
As for me never apologizing when I'm wrong ... I'll just hang that statement of yours around your head, in case anyone who knows me here see is not aware of how badly you twist things.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:08 PM
" In Goodridge terms, because the only reason to oppose ssm is animosity towards gays."
Stop lying about what the goodridge decision says.
There is NOTHING in there, and the language of goodridge contradicts your claim about it.
" Ev's defended the goodridge construction,"
Yes I have. Largely by pointing out that you don't have a clue what the goodridge decision actually says.
" and he takes it into further blood libels,"
Stop lying, Pete. There's no blood libel here, and you know it. [Ev says that people who oppose ssm are causing persecution of gays. I call that "blood libel." Ev calls that a lie.]
"Trying to bend the facts to twist what I said into a "lie," Ev pretends to think that "because" represents his motivation, rather than the argument. The sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense if you read it like that. Think harder, Ev."
No, Pete. I'm SPECIFICALLY talking about the argument. My argument is NOT, as you EXPLICITLY say, "SSM should be legal because those who oppose it are evil." It is "Because SSM would do a lot of good, and because it is required under my understanding of what equality before the law is, SSM should be legal."
Stop lying, Pete.
Posts: 14181 | Registered: Nov 2000 | IP: Logged |

Pete at Home
Member Member # 429
posted September 09, 2006 04:09 PM
That word springs too often to your lips, Wormtongue.
Posts: 14933 | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged |

Everard
Member Member # 104
posted September 09, 2006 04:12 PM
Well, you should stop lying then.

Ev's calling me a liar over matters of opinion and interpretation. On other pages he's called me a liar and accused me of "bad faith" for my opinion that the word marriage cannot include ssm.

Little Tom C. here didn't start going off on the orgy of calling me dishonest over every disagreement until I pointed out some blatant logical fallacies in some of his arguments. If we can call a spade a spade here, it seems obvious that he's using these motive inferences as a revenge for the embarrassment I caused him.

Calling what you think is a spade a spade is one thing, but the only reason to keep bitching on the liar accusation, over and over and over again, is when you don't have the evidence, and are trying to poison someone's reputation by much repitition.

Note that Tom C's the one who called Redskull the "moral equivalent of Adolf Hitler," and still refuses to apologize. Not only that -- he actually argued that this is the only way to deal with someone like Redskull, and that arguing with him politely would just validate ... something. (If I provide too many specifics I might provide some tiny insignificant detail that Tom could use to impugn my itegrity and bore everyone else to death.) Tom actually said that calling Redskull the "moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler" was the most ethical way of conducting a discussion with a person like Redskull.

Is this the sort of person that you want telling us how to run things on Ornery?

I am not questioning that Tom C. actually believes that post-rational canard, that ad homeniems are the most moral form of dialogue. [Roll Eyes]

But do you really want this to be Ornery's dominant philosophy?

If we can "call a spade a spade," does that mean that we can call someone a "fool" if we think that we've showed sufficient evidence that he is a fool? Seems that it would be easier to prove that someone was a "drooling moron," than to prove that they were a liar.

Should we give any fool licence to broadcast their motive inferences on Ornery, over and over again, with the sole basis that the fool thinks that he has "proof"?

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
at what point do you stop just laying out the evidence?
It's worth noting that both Pete and Everard appear to be tireless in this regard.
That's a pathetic moral equivalence. I'd like to see how you or anyone else would respond if someone started stalking you and calling everything you said a "lie." You think you would not defend yourself from the accusation?

PS, there are fools out there that will assume someone is a liar if a loud clack makes the accusation, and no one defends against it.

[ September 11, 2006, 02:26 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note also that on my "marriage story" thread that Tom C hijacked, Tom C has backed off his accusation that I was lying, and now uses the terms "reckless disregard for truth." He's speaking of my arguing that the Goodridge majority had unfairly applied the Loving v. Virginia holding against White Supremacy, to marriage supporters (which is essentially one of the arguments of the 3 dissenting justices in Goodridge.) Here on this thread, Tom continues to harp on the "lie" accusation, even though he's conceded on the other thread that it's not a lie.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tom Curtis:
What changed my mind was Pete's misrepresentation of the Goodridge decision. That was a clearly laid out judgement which was carefully presented to avoid confusion. Pete has seized on a single phrase, taken out of context, and inferred a claim which was not made in the judgement, and which was directly contradicted in the very paragraph from which he quoted. (See "The Marriage Story" thread for details.)

I think if you are going to cite a source, you have a responsibility to get it right. This is particularly so as we cannot expect every member to chase of after every quote or citation to check it out for themselves. I think if you cannot be bothered doing that, you should be called on it. Everard did call Pete on it, and was simply ignored by Pete. Pete just went his merry way, and never bothered to recheck his claim, SFAI can tell.


we've had posters here in the past that made wild claims about everything from 9/11 to Ormus powder. Yet nobody here felt compelled to call any of those people liars.

Anyway, you all know where I stand.

Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

quote:
Note also that on my "marriage story" thread that Tom C hijacked, Tom C has backed off his accusation that I was lying, and now uses the terms "reckless disregard for truth." He's speaking of my arguing that the Goodridge majority had unfairly applied the Loving v. Virginia holding against White Supremacy, to marriage supporters (which is essentially one of the arguments of the 3 dissenting justices in Goodridge.) Here on this thread, Tom continues to harp on the "lie" accusation, even though he's conceded on the other thread that it's not a lie.
Those who care to read my "hijacking" of the marriage story thread will find that I do not once accuse Pete of lying on it. I do accuse him of being "... obstinately bent maintaining his misrepresention of Ev and Goodridge, without any comment on his motives for doing so, or his motive for the misrepresentation, if any. In doing so, he showed reckless disregard for truth, and I don't think that is acceptable in civil conversations. ON the contrary, it is unreasonable to expect conversations to remain civil when one participant persistently does it."

At one point I express the first point by talking about his "willful misrepresentation", but as that led to misunderstanding, I clarrified. I have not however, accused Pete of lying in that thread, nor since OM has made it clear they object to that expression, if not to that behaviour. Typically of Pete, he is incapable of understanding any subtlety of expression.

For the record, I do not believe he is telling falsehoods with intent to decieve, ie, that he is lying by OM's definition. I do believe he is persistently telling falsehoods without taking reasonable, even minimal measures to ensure he is telling the truth, even when challenged, ie, that he is lying by Velcro (and my) definition.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom's rampaging crusade to paint me a liar just happened to start immediately after I pointed out that he'd used the classic logical fallacy:

All cows have four legs,
Rover has four legs,
therefore Rover is a cow.

Tom C corrected his initial fallacious statement to elimintate the fallacy, but accused me of dishonesty and "misrepresenting" him. He's played this game continually ever since. I embarassed him, and in response, he's attacking my integrity.

Under this OM regime, pointing out that one's reasoning falls under a logical fallacy does not constitute "mockery." That's simple logic. It's not like I called Tom a "fool." Likewise, if Tom C and Ev could actually show facts that proved that I was being dishonest, then they would not have to repeat the accusation ad nauseaum.

It's kind of predictable that Tom C would try to justify himself by saying that he uses a different "definition" of "lying." A more expansive definition. Apparently Tom C. also has a more expansive definition of being "morally equivalent to Adolph Hitler," since he applies that insult to Redskull, and refuses to withdraw that accusation. Should Ornery play host to such post-intelligible tactics of redefining words? In a previous discission, Ev seemed to redefine the term "liar" to mean someone who disagrees with him about possible meanings of the word "marriage." Should Ornery play host to folks that make infamous accusations, and then play the "redefinition" card to cover their rule-breaking butts? "ah, well, to me, traitor just means someone who doesn't respect American interests as much as I do." "To me, liar just means someone who says something that I believe to be recklessly wrong."

[ September 11, 2006, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tom Curtis
Member
Member # 2730

 - posted      Profile for Tom Curtis   Email Tom Curtis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete pretended to point out a fallacy whereas, in fact he just joined two descriptive sentences together and pretended they had been structured as an argument.

I have clearly pointed out in an extensive post where and how Pete has misrepresented the Goodridge judgement, and invited people to look. Pete, of course, has not bothered to go through those posts to point to any specific errors. He just declares that he is right and I wrong.

Posts: 1208 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Pete pretended to point out a fallacy whereas, in fact he just joined two descriptive sentences together and pretended they had been structured as an argument."

Sure, Tom. That's why you corrected the sentence and fixed the bad logic.

Tom C pretends that I misrepresented the Goodridge judgment, but my interpretation is the same interpretation as three of the seven justices in the case, who also said that the Goodridge majority was innapropriately using a case that had to do with *white supremacy.* Furthermore, Tom C's referred to my position for ssus rather than ssm as "apartheid," which as anyone knows was based on white supremacy.

Is Tom calling the three of seven justices "liars"? No appellate court in the US has followed the Goodridge majority. The Goodridge majority's use of Loving v. Virginia is specious, and their use of the term "invidious" is based on equivocation. It's not "reckless disregard for the truth" to concur with 3/7 minority justices. Most appellate courts that have studied the matter, have rejected the majority opinion.

If you accept Tom's argument, you're allowing him and his cronies to call people liars for disagreeing with them, regardless of how reasonable and well supported their arguments. You make this a house of Goebbels, where folks "win" arguments by dogpiling making specious accusations and repeating them until their opponents' nerves collapse.

In Tom's moral universe, it's more moral to call someone the "moral equivalent of Adolph Hitler" than to rebut their logical arguments. (I'm not making an inference -- that's actually what Tom C said to justify what he said about his holocaust-trivializing attack on Redskull). If you buy into his argument about the word "liar," you are going to turn this forum into a complete joke.

[ September 11, 2006, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you accept Tom's argument, you're allowing him and his cronies to call people liars for disagreeing with them, regardless of how reasonable and well supported their arguments. You make this a house of Goebbels, where folks "win" arguments by dogpiling making specious accusations and repeating them until their opponents' nerves collapse.
Pete, I'm fairly sure that you don't do your call for civil discourse and fair moderation any favors by vilifying someone, assigning hypothetical motives, and upholding Godwin's Law all in the same paragraph.

I don't think you're a liar. I don't think MOST people on this forum are liars. But, then, I have a fairly high standard for the word "liar," which includes not only motive but a conscious understanding of the facts.

I think people get overexcited and throw around the word "liar" as often as some other people get overexcited and throw around the word "blood libel," and the REASON they do it is that, from their viewpoint, it's inconceivable that the other person can look at the same evidence without coming to the same conclusion. And since they've presented that evidence, they feel, the only possible explanation is that the other person is deliberately ignoring the facts as they've been presented.

But in reality, none of us are all that smart. We're perfectly capable of not understanding someone else's facts, especially when the someone else in question may or may not be capable of laying them out in a comprehensible fashion. We're also not exactly the best listeners; a valid argument can go in one ear and out the other without stopping for a snack in our already ossified brain.

So assigning hostile, even evil, motives to someone just because you find yourself having to repeat yourself over and over again is almost certainly an over-reaction on anyone's part. We're just not competent enough here to be evil.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If we made it a crime to accuse someone of slander or libel, wouldn't the world be a place more conducive to friendly communication? Couldn't the victim of slander just put the facts out and let the public decide? If you feel that is the case, then your argument makes sense.
There are times and places when yelling is appropriate but if the librarian feels this is not one of those times and asks you to stop and you continue yelling, don't be surprised when the cops show up to escort you out of the building.

So is it horrible to have as a general rule in a library there should be no yelling? Can someone say they reserve the right to yell if they feel it is appropriate (fire, anyone?)? Can you see how that is different from someone yelling (or threatening to yell) after the librarian has listened to the concerns and still asks you to either quiet down or yell outside?

If someone persistently made baldface lies about someone day in and day out in various threads, sure I can understand the impulse to call them a liar publicly. Again, I think it mostly stands on its own, though. Simply state the facts and point to the threads that may help show your case better. Tiresome, huh? Well, if it's really so clearcut it's very much a winning battle. Because each time it happens again, people are more and more dismissive of that person and they may start to state the facts and point to threads for you.

Is there really consensus here that Pete is a pathological liar? A few people may think so but others have read the threads and still disagree. It's not so clearcut. I certainly don't think he is. Others here don't think he is either.

Has Pete had enough outbursts that people take his rants and accusations with a grain of salt? I'd say so. There are times I read his arguments and I agree with him but STILL think he's overreacting and overstating his case.

The same is true of Everard. There are times when he screams bloody murder about being misrepresented when I think he's got a point but I still think he's overstating his case or overreacting. Heck, most of us overstate our case or overreact to some degree now and then. If we do it often enough people start taking their grains of salt when we speak (or at least when we speak very strongly and with conviction [Wink] ).

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If you accept Tom's argument, you're allowing him and his cronies to call people liars for disagreeing with them, regardless of how reasonable and well supported their arguments. You make this a house of Goebbels, where folks "win" arguments by dogpiling making specious accusations and repeating them until their opponents' nerves collapse.
Pete, I'm fairly sure that you don't do your call for civil discourse and fair moderation any favors by vilifying someone, assigning hypothetical motives, and upholding Godwin's Law all in the same paragraph.

I don't think you're a liar. I don't think MOST people on this forum are liars. But, then, I have a fairly high standard for the word "liar," which includes not only motive but a conscious understanding of the facts.

I think people get overexcited and throw around the word "liar" as often as some other people get overexcited and throw around the word "blood libel," and the REASON they do it is that, from their viewpoint, it's inconceivable that the other person can look at the same evidence without coming to the same conclusion. And since they've presented that evidence, they feel, the only possible explanation is that the other person is deliberately ignoring the facts as they've been presented.

But in reality, none of us are all that smart. We're perfectly capable of not understanding someone else's facts, especially when the someone else in question may or may not be capable of laying them out in a comprehensible fashion. We're also not exactly the best listeners; a valid argument can go in one ear and out the other without stopping for a snack in our already ossified brain.

So assigning hostile, even evil, motives to someone just because you find yourself having to repeat yourself over and over again is almost certainly an over-reaction on anyone's part. We're just not competent enough here to be evil.

Tom D, I agree with the principles you laid out here. I did not say that Tom C is "evil." I said if we accept his strategy of substituting shrill repeated half-assed accusations for substantive argument, that Ornery will sink lower than it has ever gone.

Once someone starts the accusation game, it's very hard to not respond. I've found that here on Ornery, not responding is dangerous. Ev and others have often seized on someone's failure to respond to an accusation as some sort of concession or confession.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom C repeatedly misrepresents what I said or what I'm responding to to paint me as dishonest.

Ev on the other hand, just shrilly screamed the L word over and over again like a parakeet with Touret's syndrome.

I think that both tactics are poisonous to civil discourse. But I can respect that it would be more difficult to create a rule that would prevent Tom C's more subtle poison.

Velcro's argument collapses on examination. Even if the OMs institute a hardline rule against the word "liar" to prevent Everard-like use of the word (shrill, repeated, unsubstantiated), Tom C's own example on this forum shows that the rule does not prevent someone from continuing to rant about someone else's supposedly dishonesty.

It would be even easier to show if the person had actually said something dishonest. All you'd have to do is show your evidence and say, "how do you reconcile these?" Hang their own sentences around their neck. Thy own words condemn thee. If you can't do that, then you can't make an honest argument that the other person is lying. And if you can't make an honest argument that the other person is lying, then you should not be making the accusation in the first place.

OTOH, if we can use the word "lie," then I assure you that I will use it as well where it applies. And if the common use of the term becomes "reckless or negligent" falsehoods, then that's how I'll use the word as well. Things would get ugly around here, but at least we're no longer living in a situation where rules like "don't say lie or dishonest" only apply to some people, while others get away with murder.*

*Since Tom C's on the war path,* I guess I need to make clear that certain terms here are figurative. No actual homicides or physical hostilities have occured here. [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
blessed is the peacemaker...
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Tom is misrepresenting the conversation in order to paint me as dishonest.
Did you just call Tom a liar?
Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hate everyone.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
MattP, no one has suggested that we pass a rule against the use of the word "misrepresent," even though Tom C does abuse it.

"Liar" is the hot Tourette's syndrome word.

Note also when Ev said:
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
I acknowledge what I've said. When I'm wrong, I apologize, unlike you.

I avoided actually calling him a liar, even though I've apologized to him frequently when I've turned out to be wrong, and know that he knew that what he said was false.

Instead, I said:
quote:
As for me never apologizing when I'm wrong ... I'll just hang that statement of yours around your head, in case anyone who knows me here see is not aware of how badly you twist things.
Here, I had actual proof that Ev said something something that he knew to be false. Ev's acknowledged some of my apologies to him. And yet I did not call him a "liar." Everyone that knows me on this forum knows that I apologize when I find that I'm wrong. All I had to do was point to Ev's own words.

And that's my answer to you, Velcro. If it's a real lie, and if you can prove it, then you don't need to say the word "lie." If it's not a real lie, or if you can't prove it, then you should not be saying it.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 2763

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
MattP, no one has suggested that we pass a rule against the use of the word "misrepresent," even though Tom C does abuse it.
I realize that. I was just struck by the earlier comment that it appeared as if the ban were levied based on style rather than substance and that comment in your post was wrapped that up in a cute little box with a bow on it so I couldn't resist highlighting it.

The only conclusion I can reach here is that saying someone lied is apparently not OK, but saying that they intentionally decieved is OK.

So, if you are capable of the verbal gymnastics to say something nasty without SOUNDING like you're saying something nasty, you're cool. If you are not so gifted, you're banned.

Posts: 3481 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
canadian
Member
Member # 1809

 - posted      Profile for canadian   Email canadian       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Matt, Pete does not knowingly lie, as far as I have been able to surmise.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If it's a real lie, and if you can prove it, then you don't need to say the word "lie."
I would say the same thing about intentional misrepresentation. If you can't prove it, don't say it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1