|
Post by laurel on Feb 3, 2010 17:19:39 GMT -4
Laurel, I followed the link you provided and I'm not convinced that John Lear is really a member here. I see someone claiming to post a letter on his behalf. How do we know that John Lear the pilot, the son of Bill Lear, really wrote that? The letter posted on his behalf was just the beginning, after that someone with the username "Johnlear" posted arguments himself. If you don't believe me, you can e-mail Lear yourself and ask if he ever posted here. His e-mail address is on the Living Moon site. This should be my last post in the thread regarding Lear. www.thelivingmoon.com/
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 3, 2010 17:36:47 GMT -4
Jason, I don't see anything in Rule #1 that restricts applicability to board members. The board rules are intended to facilitate discussion between board members, so the implication is that you are to avoid insulting fellow board members. Not necessarily other groups. Yet they have all apparently joined an organization that plainly doesn't know what it is talking about.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 3, 2010 19:22:53 GMT -4
If someone is saying something that they know has been shown to be wrong, they are a liar, and it is not rude to call them such.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 3, 2010 19:39:14 GMT -4
If they know, yes. Willful deception is required for a lie.
|
|
|
Post by porphyry on Feb 3, 2010 19:51:35 GMT -4
Jason, thank you. I agree that lying means willful deception. If a person is sincerely convinced of the truth of their arguments, it doesn't matter if people on this board disagree.
Gillianren, I am very puzzled about this argument that it's ever polite to call someone a liar, or for that matter an idiot, or a bigot. Could you please tell me what would be a violation of Rule #1, if those sorts of statements are OK?
Archer17, no, I have nothing to say at this time about the Pentagon incident. I was following up on my question about the rules. Is it against the rules, to ask about the rules?
Laurel, I stand corrected about John Lear. The John Lear who wrote the letter posted here, seems to be the same person as the one who posted the website you linked, and I have no reason to doubt he is also Bill Lear's son, the one who is a member of PFT. He appears to be very intelligent. Aside from that, there's no way I can tell you what I think of him, without violating the board rules.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 3, 2010 19:57:03 GMT -4
Jason, thank you. I agree that lying means willful deception. If a person is sincerely convinced of the truth of their arguments, it doesn't matter if people on this board disagree. If they are sincerely convinced then they aren't a liar. They may still be an idiot or prejudiced, however.
|
|
|
Post by porphyry on Feb 3, 2010 20:33:56 GMT -4
Jason,
Yes, they might be an idiot or prejudiced. But it isn't polite to say so, and I don't see how you can do it here without violating Rule 1.
|
|
|
Post by archer17 on Feb 3, 2010 22:01:54 GMT -4
Archer17, no, I have nothing to say at this time about the Pentagon incident. I was following up on my question about the rules. Is it against the rules, to ask about the rules? You sidetrack a thread over board etiquette while spouting this forum's rules and have to ask? Your behavior in this thread is in violation of Rule# 2, specifically the latter part of the second sentence which states:
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 3, 2010 23:52:05 GMT -4
Jason, Yes, they might be an idiot or prejudiced. But it isn't polite to say so, and I don't see how you can do it here without violating Rule 1. Rule 1 (other than part three which specifically states that it applys to both members and non-members) only applies to how you treat others on this board, and directly at that. I can't under rule one call you as stupid idiot, I probably could get away with saying "All HB's are stupid idoits" if it was a generalized post, though not if it was obviously a direct post at you, or another HB on the forum. LO uses a lot of common sense when it comes down to it, and shows a vast amount of leeway both ways.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 4, 2010 1:48:08 GMT -4
JGillianren, I am very puzzled about this argument that it's ever polite to call someone a liar, or for that matter an idiot, or a bigot. Could you please tell me what would be a violation of Rule #1, if those sorts of statements are OK? Did I say "idiot" or "bigot" were okay? No; I said "liar" was. If I told you that I had a degree in electrical engineering, that would be flatly untrue. (English, as it happens.) You, personally, would not necessarily know that, because you're new, but the regulars would all know, especially given my honesty about my own ignorance, and it would be reasonable of them to say that I was lying. I couldn't just be confused, mistaken, or misinformed. Wouldn't it be more rude to let the error stand? Further, if I repeatedly made claims known to be untrue--I'm really the CEO of a multinational corporation; my boyfriend is Johnny Depp; my cat is a pedigree--it would be reasonable to call me a liar. I would demonstrably be one. I disapprove of calling people idiots. Actually, I may well be one of the strictest people on this board for not making fun of HBs, CTs, etc. I feel it devalues the quality of the things we are saying. Why descend to personal attacks when you have science on your side? And bigot . . . that's another one you'd have to demonstrate a lot before I'd accept using that word. But, yeah, there are a couple of people here I'd consider bigots of one stripe or another, and I've leveled that accusation pretty directly.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Feb 4, 2010 2:24:52 GMT -4
Gillianren, I am very puzzled about this argument that it's ever polite to call someone a liar Ok, in that case "Pilots for Truth" is an offensive name. If "the official story" regarding 9/11 is not the truth then that would mean your pilot friends are calling everyone who supports the official story a liar. I'm curious. Have you complained to PFT about their highly offensive name? Or are you only interested in complaining about mild insults in this forum?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 4, 2010 7:36:19 GMT -4
If a person is sincerely convinced of the truth of their arguments, it doesn't matter if people on this board disagree. But it DOES matter if reality disagrees. This whole thread started out as a claim by PFT that the cockpit door could not have been opened by the hijackers because the FDR clearly shows it as closed throughout the flight. However, in the reports that PFT claim to have read thoroughly is a little section explaining that the 'door status' column in the FDR data is useless because that particular plane had no door sensor, and so the data recorder was simply providing a default entry in the absence of data, as many recording systems do. That information was not hard to come by, so how foolish, idiotic or wilfully deceptive does one have to be to maintain that the FDR data that says the door was closed is actually a reliable hook to hang a whole conspiracy from?
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 4, 2010 11:51:51 GMT -4
Echnaton, I disagree with your definition of 'Liar'. The concept of 'liar' implies that there is some objective definition of Truth. At the very least, there needs to be a consensus among a jury of peers, or a panel of peer reviewers including some who are generally sympathetic to both sides. In the case of a forum like this, I think a consensus should include at least one "HB". Jason, thank you. I agree that lying means willful deception. If a person is sincerely convinced of the truth of their arguments, it doesn't matter if people on this board disagree. My definition is correct. Definitions of words are descriptive not proscriptive. In other words they describe the way people use words, thus my preface to the definition. You cannot arbitrarily define the way someone else is using a word and hold them accountable by that definition. The reason for the differences in the use of "liar" is the inability of discerning a persons true state of mind. How do you know the whether a person who has been presented with conclusive contradicting evidence is knowingly ignoring it, incapable of understanding it, or too blinded to consider it? It is fair to call people who claim that vaccines cause autism liars. Because there is no evidence to support their claim while at the same time they ignore a significant body of evidence that opposes them. Their actual state of mind is a distraction and need not be debated.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 4, 2010 12:20:16 GMT -4
Yes, they might be an idiot or prejudiced. But it isn't polite to say so, and I don't see how you can do it here without violating Rule 1. If I were you, I would concentrate less on whether other people are following board rules and more on the quality of your argument. Winning an argument by appealing to a moderator about a technical violation of board rules would seem at best unsatisfying to me. Yes the moderation here is biased against conspiracy theorists, but it's not too biased. You can have your fair say as long as you don't get offensive without any moderator interference. I have had complaints with the moderation before - one person in particular seems to insult me and my religious beliefs every time he posts without consequence - but simply ignoring that particular person's posts works just as well towards leaving me free to enjoy the forum as having him suspended or banned would have.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 4, 2010 12:23:34 GMT -4
The reason for the differences in the use of "liar" is the inability of discerning a persons true state of mind. How do you know the whether a person who has been presented with conclusive contradicting evidence is knowingly ignoring it, incapable of understanding it, or too blinded to consider it? It is fair to call people who claim that vaccines cause autism liars. Because there is no evidence to support their claim while at the same time they ignore a significant body of evidence that opposes them. Their actual state of mind is a distraction and need not be debated. It's a fair point that it's difficult to know someone else's true state of mind, especially on the internet. That leads me to believe that it's better to avoid calling anyone a liar, rather than mis-apply that label to the ignorant or unintelligent.
|
|