hello

[Legs]

Brevity. I don't need to quote the rest of your post to respond to this question of yours. It is nice not to bombard others with walls of text pointlessly.

Bull, complete utter bull.
If it was to respond to the post it would have of responded to the content of the post.

[Husar]

Is there any reason why you chose to omit the words other than to change the meaning?

Is an accident a choice?
Am I an omnipotent, perfect god who cannot miss something without bad intentions?
I'm flattered but I'm afraid I have to disappoint you.

Also, which words? I'm not sure anymore whether you are referring to the quoted part or to the quoted part of the quoted part that the quoted part referred to orthe other quoted part that the part quoted in the quoted part referred to or something else entirely.

Well that's simple.
If someone makes a claim about the content of a video then the video is irrefutable proof of its contents.
If the video does not contain what people claim it contains then the claims are false.
When challenged on the actual content you get further denials(excuse the pun) in response and insults.
Now if someone claims something isn't in a video when it is, and claims that they have watched the video then something doesn't ring true.
If that person then says that the lengthy interview is only 10minutes long it proves that they have neither watched the video or are aware of its contents.
Therefore everything that person has written on the subject is completely false and they have knowingly chosen to simply lie throughout the entire exchange

At this point I cannot answer you because I have not watched said video, I can neither confirm nor deny anything about these allegations.
You are however the first person I'm aware of who seems to demand that someone get punished for lying in a discussion. It's not something we ever did as far as I'm aware and I think if taken too far, it gets way too subjective given the subjects discussed in the Backroom. I mean, technically we might have to ban everything the people on the "wrong side" of a political discussion say if we assume they have evil intentions (an easy assumption in a political debate...). I'm also not sure if that is intended by the spirit of the rules, I understand them more in the way of don't spread false information with the intention of harming other members.
Either way it does not excuse personal attacks. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

[Beskar]

You are however the first person I'm aware of who seems to demand that someone get punished for lying in a discussion. It's not something we ever did as far as I'm aware and I think if taken too far, it gets way too subjective given the subjects discussed in the Backroom. I mean, technically we might have to ban everything the people on the "wrong side" of a political discussion say if we assume they have evil intentions (an easy assumption in a political debate...). I'm also not sure if that is intended by the spirit of the rules, I understand them more in the way of don't spread false information with the intention of harming other members.
Either way it does not excuse personal attacks. Two wrongs still don't make a right.

Given Legs two responses to my own messages, it is a clear example of it being subjective. He has claimed "bullshit" and "omitting". I personally feel I have done neither. So who has "lied" ? Is Legs falsing accusing me, or is his interpretation different to my own?

I feel it is the latter example in his case. Legs has his subjective interpretation which is different to the other posters. So whilst he sees it as one way, they see it as another. Because they do not see it in his way, they must be "lying", because how else could they be getting a different take on a subject than himself?

[Legs]

Also, which words? I'm not sure anymore whether you are referring to the quoted part or to the quoted part of the quoted part that the quoted part referred to orthe other quoted part that the part quoted in the quoted part referred to or something else entirely.

That's simple

I wonder, why is it you chose to the omit actual words I used? repeating claims which are knowingly false and instead cut it down to just repeating claims ........

notice how one is completely different in meaning

[Legs]

Given Legs two responses to my own messages, it is a clear example of it being subjective. He has claimed "bullshit" and "omitting". I personally feel I have done neither. So who has "lied" ? Is Legs falsing accusing me, or is his interpretation different to my own?

Because they do not see it that way, they must be "lying".

Thats easy, what happened to the second topic before you later chose to merge it.
As for your bull post read the above post.


more bull

I think in his case, his subjective interpretation is different to the other posters. So whilst he sees it as one way, they see it as another.Because they do not see it that way, they must be "lying".

If someone claims to have done something and claims to be aware of what that is and what it entails, yet proves without any shadow of doubt that have done neither then thay were clearly lying. There are no two ways about that, there is no subjective interpretation

[Montmorency]

Perhaps you would like to lay out syllogisms for us?

[Husar]

notice how one is completely different in meaning

Slightly different in meaning, why are you lying about this?

I already explained that though.
We wouldn't want to get into repeating claims which are knowingly false, would we?

[Legs]

Slightly different in meaning, why are you lying about this?

completely different in meaning

[Beskar]

Thats easy, what happened to the second topic before you later chose to merge it.

As I said, it is merged within this thread. Scroll up, look at the titles above the individual posts. "Re: Hello", "Re: Lies" and "Re: wow". These were the three threads created by yourself and the content is in here.

Are you lying by denying this has occurred? Should you be punished by the moderation staff for not clearly seeing the facts in front of you. As the idiom goes, "To err is human". Am I misattributing malicious intent on your accidental error of suggesting I am lying?

the fact is, no moderator is going to rule on subjective opinion, they are going on rule on the nature of the content infront of them. You have made mistakes in your replies, including accusing me of things which are demonstratively untrue. I know well enough that this is an error on your part, but under your rule proposal, you are lying, and you should face consequences in receiving an extension on your temporary suspension. However, I will not follow your suggestion and not extend your suspension.

Returning to the matter of hand, you cannot make any personal attacks, and if this behavior continues, then there are more permanent consequences.

[Legs]

As I said, it is merged within this thread. Scroll up, look at the titles above the individual posts. "Re: Hello", "Re: Lies" and "Re: wow". These were the three threads created by yourself and the content is in here.

Are you lying by denying this has occurred? Should you be punished by the moderation staff for not clearly seeing the facts in front of you. As the idiom goes, "To err is human". Am I misattributing malicious intent on your accidental error of suggesting I am lying?

.

Read the question you are responding to then repeat what you are saying.
Or answer the queston you are responding to instead.

the fact is, no moderator is going to rule on subjective opinion, they are going on rule on the nature of the content infront of them. You have made mistakes in your replies, including accusing me of things which are demonstratively untrue. I know well enough that this is an error on your part, but under your rule proposal, you are lying, and you should face consequences in receiving an extension on your temporary suspension. However, I will not follow your suggestion and not extend your suspension.

Returning to the matter of hand, you cannot make any personal attacks, and if this behavior continues, then there are more permanent consequences

Is that a fact, or are "personal attacks" a matter of subjective opinion?

[Beskar]

Read the question you are responding to then repeat what you are saying.
Or answer the queston you are responding to instead.

Nothing happened to the topic. As stated, it was merged into this one.

[Legs]

I see the lies are continuing.

That wasn't in the link though. It was a closed facebook-account for nazi-sympathisers.

As that person claims the interview was only 10 minutes long they cannot have got to the 40 minute mark where the neo nazi was explaining the basis of his political ideology.

[Lizardo]

[Thanks for this contribution, try again with something far more constructive and polite.]

[Fragony]

I see the lies are continuing.

As that person claims the interview was only 10 minutes long they cannot have got to the 40 minute mark where the neo nazi was explaining the basis of his political ideology.

I didn't see it ffs and I still havent, I only saw the first 10 minutes and thought it was over. But even f I did watch it I probably wouldn't have cared about what he thinks.