EnviroLink Forum

I am not making that determination, but I am pointing out the other similar slights and the consistent defense or offense to those slights based on the clique membership or lack thereof. That indicates a double standard being applied. Note that has been the point all along regardless of the attempts to make it dependent on the definition of a lie, the history of other boards, or any of the other deflections presented. If the standard is valid for one it should be valid for all and that is not the case when it is defended for some and attacked for others.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I just thought he was being a whiner and pointed it out. I wasn't trying to take any sort of official position as an admin of the board. I think the fact that everyone else comes to his defense when he's called out for being a whiner is humorous.

Don't take too much offense at me calling you a whiner, Festus... I whine enough myself.

-josh

Interesting.

So if I ever perceive that someone is a whiner, I can call them on it if I'm in the mood to do so, and I won't be reprimanded for doing so?

Cool!

It certainly appears as if you're saying that you'd like the board to run like this:

Person A writes a statement.

Person B comes back with an obvious misinterpretation.

Person A should ignore it, or is supposed to follow some specific guideline on how to handle the misinterpretation, a guideline that lies only within the brain cells of Wayne, but is unknown to everyone else?

Sounds like you need to start a new board, in which only psychics are allowed to post.

Well, you seem to do it (or to be precise, pass judgement on others here) quite a bit here. I'd characterize the majority of your posts that I've read as persnickity and judgemental, so why would you think that we'd start censoring you now? (besides the fact that we are old control freaks, patronizing and...)

-josh

I've done it more than once without consequence.

_________________
"Yes like I said it all boils down to morals. What you think is right doesn't make a person wrong because they think different " X-Black

I would never say "old"!

Actually, I've addressed it at least a couple times. Your fondness for quotes about accuracy and honesty doesn't extend to a fondness for being either, apparently.



Nope...it ain't so simple. You have to show that the criteria for one category is properly applied to the other. And yes, "stupid people" and "liars" can both reasonably considered categories.
Neither myself nor Festus have to agree with "Wayne Logic"...especially when it is so weak.



I understand the connection you're trying to make. Have all along. I don't buy it, and I still want to know where you get off mischaracterizing my post as a mischaracterization.



Other areas...like trying to get you to support your own words. Hey...they're your words. If you don't like them, keep your fingers off the keyboard next time.




What's the criteria, Wayne? Stupid can have several definitions. Liar can be reasonably assumed to simply mean "one who lies". I asked if you had an alternate definition.

Here's partially what Sianblooz wrote:



How is she not saying that Wijim is a liar?

He lies...he'll lie again...he should not bother lying anymore...but she isn't saying he is a liar?

Oh DO tell us how that would work, Wayne.

You're a master of insinuation and the art of turning a waffle to a fine crisp...DO fill us in on how you would weasel out of such an obvious position.

Then explain why in the hell a poster would WANT to spend a significant amount of time writing about someone who lies...going into various ways of accusing him of lying....and then have that lying someone wasn't being called a liar.

THEN you might be able to show some relationship between my post and Festus's complaint of Sianblooz's misrepresentation of his post.

No, what I am said is that:

Person A writes a statement.

Person B writes a not so obvious misinterpretation (read the part about stupid actions, which was the actual comparison, BTW)

Person A calls out Person B

Person C points out the second statement was not an obvious misrepresentation based on the original statement.

Persons D and E come to the defense of A stating C is mistaken.

Person F points out where Persons D, E, and G have all made similar "misrepresentations" which are ignored and it appears to be a double standard.

Please note the problem was not with the misrepresentation but the actions attacking one and defending the others. I realize it may be hard for some to see that given their apparent need to use every possible attack on those they perceive as being "bad" either now or in the past, but it is fairly easy for everyone else to see.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

You should enjoy the liberty of that one, since you must have called me a whiner oh about 43 times. [And no, I don't believe it's against rules here to call them on it so just be yourself!]

Wayne

Thought that was worth repeating in case people didn't *get* it. I think it's true. There's got to be some order to a board. 'Course Wayne & Josh you'll need to remember a few here are pretty rebellious when it comes to authority and seat belts & stop signs can cause angst, so you're in for a long haul here.

That would mean you admit to being dishonest in your last statement, because the criteria was not mine but Capitalistswine's.



It was so weak that when directly asked you had to use a Straw Man answer that mis-defined the term "stupid" from the original context? That does not give your position very much credibility.



Then you are not ignorant you are just dishonest in your posting?



This is a perfect example, you ignore the key element and try to deflect the discussion off on a tangent. Again it shows the level of honesty in your posts as being low.



Stupid can only have one general definition in the context in which it was used. The attempt to misrepresent through redefinition is just as dishonest, but if you can show us where these "other" definitions of "stupid" will work in the context used you can try to make the point from there. If you cannot make the other definitions work you have proved your attempt to be falsely based. I suppose any further discussion along this line is complete unless and until you are able to show the contextual use of those "other" different definitions.



That is simple. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, there are levels of statements. One may make an honest mistake and state something which is untrue. Technically that is a lie, but we refer to it as an "untruth" to indicate our level of concern. Now if that untruth is defended and a correction is ignored, it may later be called a "lie" due to the increased level of concern. If that is still defended one may choose to then say the person is lying thereby showing an even greater concern on their part. The last level would be calling someone a liar, which has gone past the concern for the truthfulness of the statement and attacked the person directly. The latter will generally get you a warning about such an attack. This level of use is necessary since we cannot hear inflections of the voice, see body language, or any of the other clues we get from visual/verbal conversations so it is much harder to communicate via written word. One has to be more precise and careful in writing and still the interpretation is largely based on what the reader is thinking when they read those written words. It is much easier to misunderstand communication in such a media as this than most others. That is why general rules of communication are developed and followed by most of the folks.



I would not, but I bet you can tell us which fallacy might help the most.



I don't know, some of these folks here have gone on and on about things that happened some time ago on different boards creating new threads upon new threads on the subject. I expect if we were to total the posts there are many many more on the side you seem to be supporting than the other. Why would that be?



That has no bearing on the comparison of the changes made in the statement nor the level of support or attack in the double standard application ... other than to show there is a division there.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

As long as they follow the rules here they will be OK. If they want to fight authority they can do so to a point but then it gets old just fighting to be fighting so they will have to fight with themselves, not that they may not already do so or anything they just don't do it in public. It does tend to get them stays in the local institutions when they hold an argument with themselves in public.

In the interim we will try to teach some manners and give them a semblance of civilization if possible, if not we can always suggest they up their intake of medication in the hope that helps them.

I debated libertarians on the subject of Constitutional Law on their own board, these are a piece of cake in that respect ....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

Ya' know.. it gets kind of old when people act like the users at FMB are some sort of gang out for blood or that we've got some sort of club and have a secret handshake (if we do ya'll are in trouble for not letting me in on it)you have to know to get in. We've had out fair share of bickering over there amongst members, however it seems we're all able to take it all in stride and continue to be friendly with each other regardless of what is said.

It does get rough at FMB sometimes when it comes to debating.. but if you go to the dog pound where the big dogs are you can't expect to not get stepped on and roughed up a bit from time to time.

_________________
I know God will not give me anything I can't handle. I just wish he didn't trust me so much. - Mother Theresa

well said. one characterization that can be made about fmb is that.....we have called each other out on various things or tried to correct each other on various things. but by using that its often misrepresented that "we canibalize one another"....but when we stand up for one another in like minded fashion....it's considered (in a negative sense) "gang mentality".

_________________
lately i been thinkin' aunt betty stopped her blinkin'....soon she'll be a stinkin'..........my deceased mother in law speaking of her aunt who had died.