That’s exactly it. There was obviously no consensus on who was destroying whom, so maybe we should be a little more respectful of the people we are talking to.
Personally, I have no sympathy whatsoever. Screaming the loudest and assuming the most authoritarian tone do not typically correlate with being right. If we really want to foster truth, then this shit has to go.
We allow other mild insults. It is permissable to say someone is crazy in GD, or make remorks alluding to their mental illness, such as “here’s your thorazine milkshake”. Not to mention calling them by the name of a known loon (“Professor Chomsky”).
If you replace, ‘you are a liar’ with ‘what you wrote isn’t true’ you have the statement without the insult. Being called crazy isn’t nearly as bad.
OTOH, I think the only thing that Frenzied Finn and his adoring fans, “destroyed,” was his keyboard.
You mileage, may, of course, vary. Especially if you’re a Professional US Foreign Policy Apologist[sup]©[/sup].
Even though I might agree with you, this sort of thing really doesn’t help.
Truth in advertising. It ain’t Red FuzzyBunnySlippers.
I don’t think so. Lying carries a connotation of deliberate intention to deceive, at least for me. Something can be false or just not completely true without all that baggage. For example, Newton’s laws apply only at low velocities, but he didn’t know that. I don’t think we’d say that Einstein discovered him to be a liar.
LIAR!
Oh, wait, you’re just mistaken. 
It’s currently permitted to call someone a liar in GD, has been for some time.
That being the case, there has not been a run of people calling each other liars.
I don’t think I’ve ever called another poster a liar in GD, I suspect most posters haven’t. It’s not conducive to good communication, but then neither is a conversation in which liars take part.
Agreed on both counts. There was no consensus as to how the debate was going. As with all the debates on this particular subject both sides are pretty well entrenched…and there is a lot of ignorance on both sides. Both sides obviously feels THEY are right and the other side wrong…and I see no budging on either side.
In such an environment calling someone a ‘liar’ is both counter productive AND insulting. It servers no purpose except to be inflammatory. It was obvious that Vib wasn’t lying…just ignorant or wrong (from the other sides perspective). In such a situation it is much better to either ignore posts by someone who is not engaging you the way you would like or to use a little more respect than ‘liar’ when engaging them further…at least in GD. If you want to vent on them then drag them here and call them whatever you like.
Agreed, though I CAN sympathize. Sometimes in GD, especially in the current environment, one feels like there are a pack of jackals at your heels and you are all alone. There are certain debates where it’s just a pile on…and mostly a pile on by folks like Redfury. And the hostility mounts up until the thread just sort of flames out.
-XT
On the one hand, I think in that thread the accusations of dishonesty were trotted out wayyy too early
That was not helpful; it was overly antagonistic; and it set a nasty tone for the rest of the debate. I’d have been far more receptive to Finn’s position had he not claimed at the outset ignorance or dishonesty on the part of other people, and had he not continued in that vein. He could have picked the same nit (or, if you prefer, made the same correction) in a much more diplomatic manner that would not have led to such nastiness.
On the other hand, there have been times when I’ve debated with someone in Great Debates and, at the end of several exchanges, I find myself no longer able to believe that they’re debating in good faith. In such cases, I have no problem with withdrawing from the thread with an explanation for my reason. I know some folks dislike that, but I see nothing wrong with it.
Where exactly would the line be drawn? If somebody is engaging in bad faith behavior (refusing to divulge their position, changing their position, misrepresenting your own words and then refusing to acknowledge the misrepresentation, etc.), are you allowed to express any frustration at all with the behavior? Are you allowed to say that you do not believe they are debating honestly? If so, is the difference between that and “liar” one of connotation?
Daniel
The fact that he resorted to calling people liar so early on in the discussion is a sign that he wasn’t destroying anyone, unless you want to include him in the count. He couldn’t hold his own in the debate so he started acting like a hysterical ass. It should be noted that FinnAgain has a history of playing the liar card and having meltdowns over minor disagreement. It severly damages his crediblity. That, and his lack of pithiness.
To me, its clear that his use of “liar” violated the spirit of the rules for that forum. While I don’t think accusing a poster of dishonesty necessarily merits a warning, I think Finn went beyond that by doing a whole bunch of paranoid hand-waving about everyone who was in disagreement with him, repeatedly, and in a way that conceeded no benefit of the doubt. It makes no sense to allow a poster to call folks liars over and over again, and when the so-called liars get fed up with it, reprimand them for responding to the insults in kind.
Well, I certainly agreed w/you on that thread. But ATM, I’m sorry to say, I think your ‘semi-admonishment’ is rather lame, coming as it does from a poster who wrote in GD, and I quote:
Hell’s bells! I agreed with that as well – though t I felt you were rightly called on it by Tom! So, let’s gather our cojones together and say what we really feel. After all, would you have opened this thread if it wasn’t for the other one? Let’s get real here, please.
…and what 'luc said. Even if if took him a couple of tries.
Besides no place like The Pit to say it like it is. Fuck…Shodan’s offer to bear Finn’s love child remains one of the most disgusting groveling acts I’ve seen in my six/seven years on board. Even the esteemed Professional US Foreign Policy Apologist[sup]©[/sup],** XT**, didn’t go so far. Which actually earned him some credit in my book – not that he has any or cares…
I would say that at that point it’s time to haul them off to the Pit…but to keep the nastyness out of GD. Just don’t engage them in the debate…ignore their comments and engage with someone on the other side who IS actually making the effort.
Of course, I find it difficult to restrain myself sometimes from acid comments toward some of the folks who I’ve butted heads with in the past. I DO try and follow the rules and not let my temper get the better of me…at least as a general rule.
I disagree, but concede that YMMV. I think that his use of ‘liar’ early on was a sign of the fact that this isn’t the first or even the tenth such debate on this or similar subjects that Finn has engaged in…yet the same folks bring in the same old tired and (in his mind…mine too for that matter) busted arguments over and over and over again.
It gets…wearing.
-XT
You are mistaken because you are blinded by your own preconceptions. But you’re not lying.
Why are you reminding us of this? WHY???
That might be wise. OTOH, I’m not sure that it’s not worthwhile to put in a quick note about the withdrawal, especially if it’s at the end of several back-and-forths. Would it be appropriate, do you think, even to say that this no longer appears productive?
His first accusation (with the option of ignorance instead of dishonesty) was with folks who characterized the report as saying Iran wasn’t making a bomb, given that the report said they were moderately confident Iran wasn’t making a bomb. This was surely the first time such an argument had come up, given how recently the report was released, and it struck me as an extremely trivial nitpick hardly worth making at all. If it did need to be made, it didn’t need to be made in such a combative fashion.
I quit reading his posts after awhile; maybe his later posts ended up having more signal than noise. In that case, it’s a shame: his accusations of dishonesty struck me as so inappropriate that I was not inclined to read beyond them.
Daniel
FME, here often the word “Liar” is used more as an insult and meaning specifically “I don’t agree with you, doodyhead” than “what you just said is both false and you know that it’s false”.
Rarely, again IME here, does some one post something that is both false and it can be shown by posting history that they know it’s false.
I wish folks would simply stop using the word here.
But then again, I’m still waiting for that pony.
My apologies Ma’am. It appears that the chug of Clorox I downed wasn’t enough to make me forget.
Mayhaps I need another one. Or lack for a real death-wish…especially over BB antics. Disgusting as they might be. In either case, I’m hoping myself that said reference won’t come out of my keyboard again. Can’t make it a firm promise though, as I am committed to truth as I see it.
On a side note, I’d like to commend John Mace, as the most equanimous, level-headed posters in the referenced threat – which, I must admit, took me somewhat by surprise.
Having said that, screw having John’s love child. Surely he understands – and if he doesn’t, tough tittie. Albeit he’ll always have Shodan should he pander well enough to his views.
Won’t happen though. For as much as we’ve disagreed in the past, the former, as opposed to the latter has a real head on his shoulders – with a working brain to boot. If only for that reason, I respect the man even if I can’t quite correct his misguidance on any number of topics.
Closure, madam. Or so I hope and trust.
The above has the same intent as Shodan’s declaration, only wordier.
I’d have to say it shouldn’t be legit, if only to be true to myself. I was totally sure that “liar” qualified as an insult, never crossed my mind to think otherwise. I couldn’t believe that he got away with it, page after page, found myself reviewing increasingly unlikely scenarios to account for it. The simple fact that it was board legal never entered into my thinking, until John Mace said something about it. Now, I’m likely to take John’s word in something like this. Either that, or demand really long odds for my bet, in the hope of plundering the retirement fund of his daughters’ orthodontist.
A list of legal and illegal words is futile, it is the spirit of the thing, or it is nothing worth having. Like a democracy, the flaws of the people are the flaws of the collective experience. Conversely, when people behave above their natural inclination, that can be the form of hypocrisy that has actual positive benefits. Pretending to be tolerant and gracious cuts the grooves of habit, makes the genuine article that much more likely.
There should be boundaries, of course, if for no other reason than for the entertainment value of seeing those boundaries skirted with exquisite exactitude. But those boundaries are arbitrary almost by definition. So I vote we shrug. If we were to make the word illegal, the Board would not be much improved, ignore it, and it won’t degenerate noticeably. After all, its been legal for some time now and its very rare that someone is such an enthusiastic dickosaurus to sling it around several times a page.