If it quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Thus, if it quacks like something that quacks like a duck, it is a duck, since the thing that quacks like a duck is a duck. By extension, anything that quacks like something that quacks like something [any number of iterations] that quacks like something that quacks like a duck…is a duck.
Similarly, if something that is close to a problem is a problem…
(Next I prove that geese really are grapes.)
Why a duck? 
I, too, would like some clarification on whether and how it’s OK to say outside the Pit that a poster’s sources are lying, or that a poster is repeating a lie of long standing (e.g. that the Confederate secession was really about states’ rights).
If moderators want to say there’s no daylight at all between ‘lying’ and ‘bearing false witness,’ that’s fine with me. But that’s really a side issue AFAIAC.
Look, you used an “h” word, and that’s awful close to “horney.”
I can see where saying “your cites are lies” can be an end-run around the rules.
Because many times the cites are not saying much if anything more that what the poster himself said. And/or there is no more basis for saying that the authors of the cites are liars (versus having a difference of opinion) than there is in saying that the poster is a liar. In such cases, saying that the cites are lies is the functional equivalent of saying that the poster’s statement/position is a lie, even without directly saying it.
I have no idea if this was so in the case at hand (it doesn’t seem like it based on OL’s reaction, but I’ve not looked through the actual exchange which led to the accusation) so this is just a general comment about the issue.
I think at some point, we need to come to grips with the fact that a forum designed for arguments is going to have disagreements, possibly even passionate ones. I see the value in disallowing direct attacks on specific posters. I see far less value in the slow erosion of the ability to attack references. If having one’s citations labeled as ‘lies’ bothers a poster, I think they should take up crochet or something else less critical. Supposedly, we are all adults and intelligent to boot. It should not be hard for intelligent adults to dissociate themselves from citations, to recognize when they’ve made an unsupportable claim and to trust that the rest of the board can adequately distinguish from valid and invalid dismissal of sources.
Well said, Inner Stickler.
What’s been lost to some extent is that several people were reporting the post in question. So while it might seem ridiculous that JC added a note for something totally fine, evidently it was needed to clarify things for some people.
I think the problem is less over-zealousness by the mods, and more the pearl-clutching posters who look for any possible affront in GD and jump at any opportunity to rule-lawyer a victory.
Oops - also lost was my recollection of the content of the mod note. Never mind. After review, I revise my opinion to be over-zealousness on everyone’s part.
Look, I agree with Frank! One of the Seven Signs of the “Aporklips”, I am sure.
Here’s why this needs clearing up. Chance seems to be indicating that the reason why the Note wasnt a Warning is that Andros used the term ‘false witness’ instead of “lying”: I’m only refraining because I can see the slightest bit of daylight between ‘false witness’ and ‘lying’. Chance even said “Andros, this is riiiight on the edge of earning a warning for accusing another poster of lying”.
So what we want clarified - is this now a new Chance rule for GD, that you can’t call the cite a liar? True, terms like “you cite is bullshit” are more common than “your cite is a big fat liar, liar pants on fire” but the idea is the same.
I accept the fact that Jonathan is just human, and he may have misread the post and thought Andros was saying Omar Little was “bearing false witness”. Sure, fine. But Chance has had a chance to reply here and his reply doesn’t indicate anything along those lines, just the small line between lying and “bearing false witness”.
So Jonathan, are you now making a new double secret rule? Can we still say a poster’s cite is bullshit/lying/full of shit/etc? I mean usually I just say “it’s worthless and heavily biased”, but still.
This is why I am leery of posting in GD, you have to take a "Chance’ on the moderation.
It’s not just you
Ha! Thanks.
Ditto
I’m sorry…are the three of you agreeing that you won’t participate in a GD thread because of its moderation standards? Because respectfully I find that just bizarre.
ditto!!
Why? Do you like capricious and arbitrary warnings?
I will say this, the first time I read the post in question I thought the poster was basically saying “You are using stories with lies to back up your claim and that makes YOU a liar.” I went back and reread it and saw I misinterpreted it the first time.
If you can find a better system of moderators for a general-interest discussion and debate forum, I’d sure be interested in learning of it. The guys here are human, and make the occasional boner, but they really are better than anything else I’ve ever seen. Vastly better!
I’ve been on fora where, had I publicly criticized a mod for making an error, I would have been banned. Here, there’s a whole forum devoted to questions about moderation and administration. That’s “transparency” of the most admirable sort.
And if Andros – whom I had thought was the victim of a bad mod call – is okay with the modding here, that’s a very significant endorsement.
Until the mods are replaced by robot overlords, or flawless AI rhetorical parsing systems, we’ve got the best human modding around.
No, not just because of that. Another strong reason for me is what TroutMan delineated in his post #67. Also, take a look at the second reply to the OP (tied for first, simulpost to the nearest minute) by me. Omar Little, recipient of andros’s post in question, agreed that he had made a good point. “Good point”, typed Omar. This carried no weight with the moderator, as it was not even mentioned. That, and the apparent fact that what goes on in gd is considered to be fun, is what I find to be bizarre.
Also, FX, in post #32 dittoed me so I owed him one.
True, but they are loath to admit they made a mistake and they too often “circle the wagons”. They also get pissed off if you make too much work for them, either getting or sending too many reports.
Lies and the lying liars that tell them…