Now you’re getting into epistemology.
Seems to me that a fact is a true statement about a particular condition of the universe, not the condition itself. Thus it cannot be factual for me to say “FinnAgain has an ancient Rome coin in his pocket” or FinnAgain does not have an ancient Roman coin in his pocket" because I have no information as to whether you have access to ancient Roman coins, whether you have any pockets, or whether you are a he rather than a she.
It is factual to say that ghosts are a physical impossibility. It is just as factual to say that about ghosts as it is to say that people can’t fly like Superman.
For the first, you could answer assuming that there was a Noah’s ark, where would it have ended up. For the second, you can assume that had Bush wanted to take down the WTC, how could he have done it.
Both might end up being kicked to GD.
But they aren’t saying “asuming x…” they are asking for a GQ answer to questions that are based on false premises.
Also, in neither of those cases would posters be prohibited from giving factual answers.
Weepimg, creeping, Krishna on a cracker…the pretention.
Whatever you think of me, the mission of the BOARD is to fight bullshit, not humor it.
The mission of the board is to make money. That whole “fighting ignorance” thing, if it ever really meant anything, is now a marketing slogan. Hint: all champions do not breakfast on Wheaties.
That is some world class hand waving right there.
So, Dio- *are *there such things as “smurfs”?
You’re the gem in Creative Loafing’s crown, DtC. Absolutely no question about it.
The idea is that GQ is the most polite forum on the board. And, no, a terse statement, whether fact or opinion, is not considered polite (as I used to have to be told all the time). Even the snark has to be obvious and humorous.
As for Dio’s claim about fighting ignorance: you encourage ignorance when you make the ignorant angry. What you call coddling, most of us call being civil. If an assumption is so strong that the OP doesn’t notice it, chances are it’s a deeply held belief. If you are not careful, challenging such beliefs comes off as an attack, and promotes the irrationality you claim to be trying to fight.
If it were the only possible response, that’d be one thing. But, seeing as it takes very little effort to couch things in a more palatable way, why not do so? Why be rude and then have to work uphill to fight someone’s ignorance?
Indeed. And that never *needs *to be said.
Because one man’s ghost is another man’s God.
Nah, I’m specifically avoiding epistemology and focusing on ontology. Whether or not you know something to be true, it’s still either true or it’s not. If I have that coin in my pocket, whether or not you know for sure, whether or not you’re guessing, and even if you just made up “Finn has an ancient Roman coin in his pocket” and it happened to be true (or false).
It is, as you put it, either a true statement about a particular condition of the universe. And it is true whether or not the statement is true, not whether or not you know and/or can prove that it is. Or to put it another way, someone who knows nothing of math, and doesn’t even speak English, but is trained to repeat “two plus two equals four” has said a true thing, even though they don’t know it.
So “there are no ghosts” is either a true statement or a false one, because there either are ghosts or there are not.
(I’m deliberately not commenting on how one might go about arguing for either position, or whether or not one can be a damn insufferable jerk arguing for or against it. Just nitpicking the ontological issue.)
The question, (not assertion), of the thread’s OP was not a debate. I probably should have moved the thread to IMHO. It was early and I was trying to get out the door to work and my coin flip came up “GQ.” Given a destination of GQ, I posted a note indicating that the typical snark responses were not appropriate.
Had the coin come up “IMHO” or “MPSIMS,” (I have a multi-sided coin), I would not have put quite the same constraints on responses.
You’re not “fighting ignorance” by telling someone who is pretty obviously posting tongue-in-cheek that there aren’t such things as ghosts. And to the extent this board is about fighting ignorance, it’s about doing it with a sense of humor. A knee-jerk humorless response contributes nothing.
I think we need a [DtC]…[/DtC] command added to the board, that would expand to Recognizing that the underlying premise/premises of the following statement(s) have no reliable scientific evidence and are considered by sceptics to be nonsense, if we, for the sake of argument, temporarily accept the said underlying premise/premises in the way commonly believed by the majority of those believing the aforesaid premise/premises, what is the answer to the following question? <question to be asked> , again based on the previously mentioned underlying premise/premises of what many consider at best highly doubtful and at worse completely false as interpreted by those accepting said premise/premises.
That way Dio would be happy and people’s questions could be asked in peace. 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let’s not be saying things we can’t take back. His posts certainly add both a good dose of hostility, bitterness, and possess an amazing ability to derail almost any conversation.
That’s gotta count for something, right?
A “Holy” ghost, as it were? 
