# Hank Beecher's warnings and suspension are bullshit **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [April 23, 2016, 5:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876 "2016-04-23T05:32:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 63
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876/63 "2016-05-06T21:46:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I don’t know, but go back and read the specific context I was talking about and tell me what you think. I did that earlier. I did that just now, then dug into the thread itself. Honestly, I can read it both ways, though by way of full disclosure I tend to read such things with a generous interpretation, and react strongly when accusations of lying are explicit. That’s my bias. Can I pivot to a more general point? Wolfpup captured the fundamentals of the issue in a past ATMB thread: > [@Does "Deliberately Distorted" = "Lied"](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-deliberately-distorted-lied/722598/72): > > The first point is of interest to me, too, relative newbie here though I am, and I offer my opinion that it’s quite different from accusing someone of lying. The prohibition against accusing someone of lying or being a liar is something that I think most of us can live with because it’s unnecessarily insulting and hostile. But when we start outlawing anything that can even remotely be considered possibly synonymous, then IMHO we start to seriously impair the ability to communicate on this board. Which is my answer to the basic question in the OP – it may or may not be equivalent to an accusation of lying depending on context, and the mods can make that call, but we don’t need any more rules that impair the ability to communicate basic ideas. There are some psychological issues that arise when someone trusts science and medicine with their life, but decides that 98% of all climate scientists are wrong. Such phenomenon are valid grist for GD. What would have been best practice to communicate such valid ideas? “Willful ignorance” could have included a link to wikipedia, but frankly on a message board devoted to fighting ignorance would arguably be read as more offensive. “Willful blindness” is another alternative. But frankly I think “Willful denial” sounds mildest to me. On a first reading, I gave it a generous interpretation (but recall my bias). At any rate, here’s my point. We want to keep pit-worthy stuff out of GD. But we don’t want to discourage clear communication. I think direct accusations of lying serve no purpose and are inappropriate as they are essentially about the poster. But “Your post expresses symptoms of denial”, seems appropriate in some discussions of climate science. Of course everything can be trolled and line danced. Which is why the mods need to look at general patterns of behavior. By way of further disclosure, this post expresses my preferences for board policy on this topic: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18745407&postcount=161) --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hank-beechers-warnings-and-suspension-are-bullshit/752876)._