hello

[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]

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?

[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.

[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.