This is pretty awkward. I think you’d have been more successful if you’d gone with an “I wanted to respond but was worried the presence of a mod would make it risky, since they’re so mean and arbitrary” tactic, rather than an “I’m assuming I have to respond because a mod posted in a thread with my name on it, even though I don’t want to.” approach.
Also, try to stay on message. If you truly believe what you’re saying, you’d be filled with righteous indignation at the treatment you’re getting, not carefully explaining how your facade is in fact consistent. Put yourself in the mind of the persona you’ve created and you’ll be more successful.
I fail to see the distinction between your “factual” hypotheticals and your “non-factual” hypotheticals. You have as much evidence for the idea that the doctors are running an insurance scam as you do for the idea that she’s being secretly poisoned by Muslims. Which is, of course, none. And without evidence, you do not, in fact, have a fact. Which is a roundabout way of saying that your understanding of the word “factual” seems sadly lacking. I’d suggest you go look it up, but you’d likely get frightened off by big, unfamiliar words, like “based on,” or “pertaining to.” Or “dictionary,” for that matter. So, let me help you out on this one.
Factual means something that is verified to be true. It doesn’t mean something that could be verified to be true. That’s what we call “possible.” It’s possible that the doctors are running an insurance scam. But General Questions isn’t the place for possible answers. It’s a place for factual answers. And since you do not know the sick woman, or her doctors, or the details of her treatment, the only *factual *answer you could have given in that thread is, “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about.”
I’ve only been a GQ mod for a few months, so I am writing this response with my MOD HAT OFF.
I’ve enjoyed GQ ever since I’ve been participating on the SDMB, because it is all about posting questions and getting factual answers (along with a little snark and sarcasm for spice). What you wrote here makes it clear that you have absolutely no stinking idea what a fact is. Come on. “Both of these CAN be facts”?
“Silverstreak Wonder is a child molester” CAN be a fact, if you go molest a child. That doesn’t mean it’s a fact now, and it doesn’t mean it should be posted as a factual answer in a thread discussing someone else’s issues.
As I said, my mod hat is off, and this isn’t an official pronouncement, but I think you’d make a lot of people (me included) much happier if you shut the hell up in GQ unless you have actual verifiable information to contribute, rather than irresponsible speculation that MIGHT be a fact. Someday. Somehow.
Okay, let’s try this: Imagine you had a friend. A single friend - no need to get crazy here. This friend is sad. This friend is sad because his other friend is very sick. Wouldn’t you be sad for your friend? Even if the sick person wasn’t family - their illness hurts someone who is close to you - your friend. You see, normal people empathize with their friends. In fact, the OP in the other thread probably was hoping she could learn something that indicated the outcome might be positive - something she could care with her friend. She wanted this because she cared about her friend’s feelings.
Miller says that to respond, I would have to know the details of this persons treatment in post 47 and that otherwise all I am allowed to say is nothing, not any possible reasons. I understand what this means, but why does it not apply to any of the other posters then? I see no one who knew anything specific other than the long time, how is their views not opinion also then? Isn’t that why it was in fact moved to IMHO?
It is not nearly as simple to say molester and that that could be a fact, it could, but there is no supporting evidence. In my case there was supporting evidence for my view, the long time the op took. I gave factual reasons why an op could run real long based on the info given. Others did the same didn’t they? Is it really your claim all the other posters knew any more details than I did, and knew the person so they all were hurt too?
Why be hurt, I never said anything bad about the woman, only that her care could be bad, I stand by that. I bet something was botched. I can’t imagine a GQ where it is wrong to state what you think is the most likely answer, no one has all the facts on specific people but everyone else can post. This is nuts. They post about untested physics theory all the time and time travel, string theory, etc and have not done the experiments themselves. Yet above I am told all must be “verifiied to be true” in order to post to any GQ thread??
I will look to see this kind of rule done on anyone else in GQ, that is for sure. No, I had no idea it was wrong to state possible reasons in GQ. But all the mod had to do was move it to IMHO and did so, and should have left comments about me off. I do not value his opinion unless it had been done to everyone else. I bet these kinds of rules will never apply to anyone else and haven’t.
When on a big public message board is anyone going to have the level of info required to post given in post 47, what he claims are facts only, tell me that please? The other mod says “uninformed speculation” is not allowed in GQ, then how could anyone answer in the whole thread (and most others there)? My argument was it was informed, based on the long time of the operation. As informed as any other replies…
Then stay out of GQ, at least until you figure out how that forum works. Your style of blithe, self-important speculation can be grating in other forums but in GQ it really is against the rules.
You are demonstrably wrong.
No, they’re all simple. They’re just not elegant and they’re not really solutions.
Blah blah blah, I’m Silverstreak Wonder and I’m incapable of distinguishing between “I’m being a jerk” and “I’m being persecuted unfairly for being so noble.”
Also, Silverstreak Wonder could EASILY be a child molester. I’m just sayin’.
