What should forum policy be on defamatory posts?

The question at its heart is: should someone yell fire if they can't prove there is a fire?  To impune someones character by unsubstantiated allegations should not be allowed.

Describing Linda as someone who uses obfuscation as a tactic is simply fair comment.

Could you elaborate, Berkelon ?

Alex Tsakiris co-signing with you hardly bolsters your position, and the fact that Alex banned someone is strong evidence that they were making sense, not towing his party line, and he couldn't handle it. Cheers!

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 question really is whether the forums are lightly moderated or heavily moderated - in other words, whether the moderators get involved in the to-and-fro of robust debate, policing factual accuracy, politeness and so on.

To my mind, if the moderators aren't going to police factual accuracy, then users are going to have to deal with it themselves, and that will involve not only commenting on individual falsehoods, but also commenting on habitual dishonesty. Let's not be naive - a lot of people do argue dishonestly in forums like this one, and if they do it needs to be addressed, either by moderators or other users.

I'd vote strongly in favour of the moderators not getting involved in these areas, unless an extreme problem arises.

Alex Tsakiris co-signing with you hardly bolsters your position, and the fact that Alex banned someone is strong evidence that they were making sense, not towing his party line, and he couldn't handle it. Cheers!

Well next time, please just come right out with it instead of being sarky, Berkelon.  And your statement  

Alex banned someone is strong evidence that they were making sense,

is just your opinion. I prefer to deal in facts and Linda was banned for continually making false statements (obfuscation effectively) relating to the Pam Reynolds case. Statements that were factually incorrect because they contradicted the only accurate source of information, the surgeons themselves.    

I don't use obfuscation as tactic, nor do I intend or want to be obfuscatory. I realize that sometimes my posts have been difficult to understand or confusing or have been misunderstood.  My response is to try to clarify and correct myself. Just like sometimes I find posts from other people confusing or I have misunderstood them, and my response is to ask for clarification or correction.

I was never banned for making false statements about the Pam Reynolds case. I never deliberately made false statements about the Pam Reynolds case to begin with. I didn't contradict the statements of the surgeons. I never brought up sea slugs in relation to the Pam Reynolds case.

Linda

I don't use obfuscation as tactic, nor do I intend or want to be obfuscatory. I realize that sometimes my posts have been difficult to understand or confusing or have been misunderstood.  My response is to try to clarify and correct myself. Just like sometimes I find posts from other people confusing or I have misunderstood them, and my response is to ask for clarification or correction.

I was never banned for making false statements about the Pam Reynolds case. (YES YOU WERE) I never deliberately made false statements about the Pam Reynolds case to begin with. I didn't contradict the statements of the surgeons. (YES YOU DID) I never brought up sea slugs in relation to the Pam Reynolds case.

Linda

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/wh...32/page-21


fls said: (go to post)

Now you're getting into the details which matter (and thank you for finally admitting that it wasn't a flat line). We know from studies with subjects under anaesthesia that you do not have to be explicitly conscious in order to hear and remember while under general anesthesia. Nor do you have to explicitly recall that you heard something in order to have formed an implicit memory of what you heard. I don't think there is any dispute that explicit awareness/consciousness will not be possible with a burst suppression pattern. But this doesn't address the issue of whether there was sufficient brain activity for implicit memory formation at the time Pam seemed to overhear a snippet of conversation. And the examples I gave earlier, of studies which suggest that there may be sufficient activity under burst suppression, at least indicate it's worth seeking out a primary source to address this possibility.

Linda
Click to expand...

Are you seriously bringing up the kind of reflex memory associated with Eric Kandel's sea slugs? I've done some research on implicit learning and tacit knowledge for my PhD, but have not come up with any author who has hinted that what you suggest is possible. The research I've read describe implicit learning, knowledge, and memory as knowledge acquired while conscious, but at a subliminal level. The idea is that we are far more observant than we realize, likely because we could not simultaneously focus on every detail of our environment. Therefore, while we take it all in while conscious (because our sensory input mechanisms are all active while conscious) we sublimate the majority of what we receive as a way to filter the data. While unconscious, particularly while in a medically induced coma where our body is completely insensitive to even gross trauma, such as major surgery, there is no hint that any sensory data is being processed or received. Even if you had research that suggested otherwise, this seems like a really ridiculous effort to go through in order to avoid admitting the obvious: that Pam Reynolds experienced a veridical OBE. Going after the idea that somehow some tiny part of her was able to physically intuit the details she related while conscious stretches the limits of what these doctors have said they consider possible to the breaking point and beyond.

AP
 
Andrew Paquette, Dec 24, 2013

fls said: (go to post)

No, it would be a matter of what point they were at in the titration process when the conversation took place.



The quote clearly refers to the time after cardiopulmonary arrest, and not to the time period we are talking about. Also, there isn't enough context given to see what Woerlee is agreeing to. After all, he may just be conceding that a cardiologist (Sabom) may speak more as a lay-person when it comes to EEG's. What's the context for that quote?

Linda
Click to expand...

But Linda, you were asked not to post in this thread any longer!

You're a master to spinning this skeptical nonsense (I gotta give you that) and you provide some interesting dialog along those lines, but when you're asked to not post in a thread I hope you'll respect that... it's only fair... I mean, we should be allowed to put some limits on this nincompoopery.

Pls take 2 days off from posting.

fls said: (go to post)

No, it would be a matter of what point they were at in the titration process when the conversation took place.



The quote clearly refers to the time after cardiopulmonary arrest, and not to the time period we are talking about. Also, there isn't enough context given to see what Woerlee is agreeing to. After all, he may just be conceding that a cardiologist (Sabom) may speak more as a lay-person when it comes to EEG's. What's the context for that quote?

Linda
Click to expand...

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/wh...32/page-22
This is an example of your obfuscation for the whole world to see, Linda. Go into the link above and see post after post by your good self trying to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Alex banned you for 2 days (not the first time was it) but later you were banned permanently.

Well next time, please just come right out with it instead of being sarky, Berkelon.  And your statement  

Alex banned someone is strong evidence that they were making sense,

is just your opinion. 

Sometimes snark is what is required and, alas, I'll decide when snark is desired.

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 ?

Rubbish...

So should I ever call Max B a misogynist who has long history raping women you'd find that acceptable without proof?