(2017-09-20, 04:36 PM)berkelon Wrote: [ -> ]Sometimes snark is what is required and, alas, I'll decide when snark is desired.
Fair enough but I nearly missed your true point because of the snark. And you wouldn't want me to think you were being friendly, now would you ?
(2017-09-20, 04:56 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Rubbish...
So should I ever call Max B a misogynist who has long history raping women you'd find that acceptable without proof?
Tim's post shows that Andy Paquette was the one who brought up sea slugs.
Alex said he banned me because I was asked not to post in the thread any more, except I was never actually asked to stop posting in the thread.
Andy asked me to stop posting using the word "claim" unless I accepted Spetzler's statement "She was under EEG burst suppression which is incompatible with anesthetic awareness.' The bizarre part of that whole thing was that I had been specifically accepting that statement all along in the thread. Andy was informed of that, and the conversation had moved on for several pages before Alex banned me.
I answered questions, I made specific statements, and I provided explanations and corrections if I saw something was misunderstood. That is not obfuscation.
Some people throw derogatory terms around because they disagree with someone. That shouldn't serve as any sort of legitimate standard, though.
I think this exchange illustrates pretty clearly why I suggested that the moderators may want to re-think the idea of policing someone who follows a poster around in order to post defamatory remarks. I don't want them to have to deal with this kind of crap. And I don't want to waste my time playing whack-a-mole against falsehoods. I would much rather just keep tim on ignore, and ask for moderation if he becomes disruptive.
Linda
I've never reported anyone before because I don't like the concept of it but I've just reported that comment you've made, Steve. I get you're only making an example but it's in extremely bad taste so I would suggest you take it down before someone copies it.
(2017-09-20, 02:00 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]The question at its heart is: should someone yell fire if they can't prove there is a fire? To impugn someones character by unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed.
I think the problem is "unsubstantiated allegations". Won't that turn in to a quagmire for a moderator to have to judge whether someone's intentions are dishonest or obfuscatory?
Linda
(2017-09-20, 05:16 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Tim's post shows that Andy Paquette was the one who brought up sea slugs.
Alex said he banned me because I was asked not to post in the thread any more, except I was never actually asked to stop posting in the thread.
Andy asked me to stop posting using the word "claim" unless I accepted Spetzler's statement "She was under EEG burst suppression which is incompatible with anesthetic awareness.' The bizarre part of that whole thing was that I had been specifically accepting that statement all along in the thread. Andy was informed of that, and the conversation had moved on for several pages before Alex banned me.
I answered questions, I made specific statements, and I provided explanations and corrections if I saw something was misunderstood. That is not obfuscation.
Some people throw derogatory terms around because they disagree with someone. That shouldn't serve as any sort of legitimate standard, though.
I think this exchange illustrates pretty clearly why I suggested that the moderators may want to re-think the idea of policing someone who follows a poster around in order to post defamatory remarks. I don't want them to have to deal with this kind of crap. And I don't want to waste my time playing whack-a-mole against falsehoods. I would much rather just keep tim on ignore, and ask for moderation if he becomes disruptive.
Linda
Please, spare me the "I'm the victim act", Linda. I am not following you around (what a joke), that in itself is a lie. And I have not said anything about you which cannot be substantiated. I'm perfectly entitled to read the thread where I made the post about cardiac arrest.
You made a statement there which was absolute nonsense and because I'm quite aware of your reasoning behind it, I made one post to point it out. Seeing as you have me on ignore and no one copied it, how did you even know it was there ??
I don't want them to have to deal with this kind of crap.
I would much rather just keep tim on ignore, and ask for moderation if he becomes disruptive.
Gordon Bennett, what on earth have you been putting in your tea, dear.
(2017-09-20, 05:27 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]I think the problem is "unsubstantiated allegations". Won't that turn in to a quagmire for a moderator to have to judge whether someone's intentions are dishonest or obfuscatory?
Linda
Laird started this thread asking this question.
Quote:Recently, moderators have made two decisions with respect to defamatory posts:
Ian (Ninshub) deleted a post by Leuders which made unsubstantiated allegations of sex crimes against a (deceased) public figure in mediumship.
I don't think so. Laird is asking is it right or wrong? If I accuse so and so of engaging in criminal activity that is *
defamation of character if I know it's a false statement(s) in a strict legal definition. See below. The second unstated question is what is and how far should permissible free speech be allowed to go on this forum? There must be rules or at least guidelines. The admins have to decide what is allowed and not.
Quote:* Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person's reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.
Legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Defamation+of+character
(2017-09-20, 05:20 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]I've never reported anyone before because I don't like the concept of it but I've just reported that comment you've made, Steve. I get you're only making an example but it's in extremely bad taste so I would suggest you take it down before someone copies it.
It's needed to drive the point home since a lot of folks are having a difficult time getting to the crux of Laird's question. No one thinks Max is a "_____" and "___________".
(2017-09-20, 05:04 PM)Steve001 Wrote: [ -> ]So should I ever call Max B a misogynist who has long history raping women you'd find that acceptable without proof?
I had a Skeptiko member say some pretty nasty things about me and to me, insinuating a lot of stuff. I was upset about it at first, but I wrote a response and then let it go. And it's not like accusations against my anonymous username, which is in no way connected to my real-life name, is going to impact my life and ruin my reputation, so no that would not be legal defamation.
If someone came on here saying that about Max, I'd be surprised, and troubled someone would say that, but then again, it's just another anonymous user accusing another anonymous user of crap (that's the Internet for you), and if that person can't link to something written by Max himself (about him raping women), I'd dismiss it.
It would be another thing with doxxing though. I'd hope this forum is completely against doxxing users.
(2017-09-21, 04:32 AM)Doppelgänger Wrote: [ -> ]I'd hope this forum is completely against doxxing users.
I would assume so, yes. No-brainer.