"Liar" is the new "troll"

[SpencerH]

3701 San Martin dr
Office 437
Baltimore, MD 21218

come get some

Its probably the Dean of Sciences office. Wouldnt he be surprised when I kicked down the door.

[KrazyHorse]

I should have sent you to the office of this 6'4 250 lb former Aussie olympic swimmer upstairs from me. He's middle-aged and has a beer gut now, but I get the feeling he's been in more than his fair share of brawls (for an astronomer, at least).

[Krill]

There is a reason that posters like che, Rufus, Arrian, etc. have called Ben a liar or someone who deliberately distorts history (ie, a nicer way of calling him a liar). It isn't some gang of miscreants. We are talking about everyone from the most respected posters down to newbies.

Yeah. You always get a few people who are a good barometer of a forum...and when those people get pissed at you you know you have gone just a little bit too far...

[SpencerH]

There is a reason that posters like che, Rufus, Arrian, etc. have called Ben a liar or someone who deliberately distorts history (ie, a nicer way of calling him a liar). It isn't some gang of miscreants. We are talking about everyone from the most respected posters down to newbies.

I used to work at a place where I had access to raw intel about events that were occuring in the world. Then I would turn on the TV or read the news and see representations of those events that were completely false. Today the media and public disinformation is much worse. With a click of a button one can pull up statistics and "facts" that support whatever idea one wants depending on where one stands on an issue. I've found that to be true in science as well as the news which has led to my avoidance of reading anything not written by people I know personally.

BK is on one side and we (generally) are on the other. That doesnt make him a liar nor does it mean that he deliberately, i.e. knowingly, distorts history. IMO the term liar is being thrown around all too commonly by people who have the benefit of anonymity and distance from their target.

[Asher]

BK is on one side and we (generally) are on the other. That doesnt make him a liar nor does it mean that he deliberately, i.e. knowingly, distorts history. IMO the term liar is being thrown around all too commonly by people who have the benefit of anonymity and distance from their target.

You don't get it. He's not a liar because we disagree with him. He's a liar because he routinely lies about what people say, overtly and subtly. He'll misrepresent people's position's regularly to make a counterargument. We've been over this before, so I won't continue.

But to say we call him a liar because of his backwards views is, well, a li----err, it is wrong.

For example. SlowwHand and I don't agree on much of anything, and IIRC him and Ben agree on most topics? But I consider SlowwHand a man of great integrity, even if we disagree. Ben is not SlowwHand.

[SpencerH]

The problem is that BK is ****ing retarded. You can't even argue with him, make a reasonable post, or even discuss, because he just lies constantly, misquotes and misrepresents what others post.

I think I've given my views on the "lying". As for the rest, it sounds like most discussions here; set up a strawman and bash away.

You can't deal with that **** and have an interesting conversation.

I agree it can be irritating but since we're seperated by thousands of miles, not across a table in a bar, it's what we've got.

[Krill]

I think I've given my views on the "lying". As for the rest, it sounds like most discussions here; set up a strawman and bash away.

Not really, not every argument here is a strawman. And that's the point; we don't want to have to rely on strawmen arguments and flaming for entertainment.

I agree it can be irritating but since we're seperated by thousands of miles, not across a table in a bar, it's what we've got.

Because even with BK on ignore, other people quote him. If I can't have a decent conversation with someone in a thread because BK is being a ****** then something is slightly wrong.

I'm not advocating banning him, just that it is a level that has to be acknowledged.

[SpencerH]

You don't get it. He's not a liar because we disagree with him. He's a liar because he routinely lies about what people say, overtly and subtly. He'll misrepresent people's position's regularly to make a counterargument. We've been over this before, so I won't continue..

Again, setting up a strawman has been a standard discussion practice as long as I've been here (and one well used by me). One hopes, however, that a few morsels of real interest can be gleaned by all sides. From my scans of any BK thread, I get the impression that it never ever gets that far and almost immediately turns into a feeding frenzy of personal abuse. So whats the point? If he's a troll, stop feeding him. If he's not, then stop the insults and bash away at the strawmen.

For example. SlowwHand and I don't agree on much of anything, and IIRC him and Ben agree on most topics? But I consider SlowwHand a man of great integrity, even if we disagree. Ben is not SlowwHand.

So where did Nikolai fit in? I wasnt sure whether you had or have a login at WPC either. I believe you said your ip (or something) was banned but I expect that you have the skills to beat that.

[Asher]

Again, setting up a strawman has been a standard discussion practice as long as I've been here (and one well used by me).

Yes, that's why I never get along with you. It's not standard practice, and it's not acceptable.

Time for you to debate the merits of what people say now. Sorry.

So where did Nikolai fit in? I wasnt sure whether you had or have a login at WPC either. I believe you said your ip (or something) was banned but I expect that you have the skills to beat that.

Nikolai made a false claim that essentially said I was a liar, then refused to apologize for it. We're not going back there again though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

nor does it mean that he deliberately, i.e. knowingly, distorts history

Yes, he does. He says things that no one who has any idea of history at all would possibly say, like saying Calvin Coolidge ran for 2 terms and then when called on it, said, he ran one term as Vice President and one term President, that's what he meant as 2 terms (BULL****!!). That's a lie. Blatant too.

[SpencerH]

Not really, not every argument here is a strawman. And that's the point; we don't want to have to rely on strawmen arguments and flaming for entertainment.

I didnt say "every", I said "most". Now you're distorting what I said.

Forgive the childish example but it goes toward what Arrian mentioned about giving the "benefit of the doubt". Perhaps BK has gone beyond that, I dont know.

Because even with BK on ignore, other people quote him. If I can't have a decent conversation with someone in a thread because BK is being a ****** then something is slightly wrong.

I'm not advocating banning him, just that it is a level that has to be acknowledged.

I agree thats why I dont put anyone on ignore despite having a deep desire to do so.

[Nikolai]

Nikolai lied, claiming Asher made a login called Asher somewhere else. He editted it after was called out on it.

So it was either a (successful) troll, intentional lie, or a mistake.

When Asher said it was a wrong, and that Nikolai was a liar, Nikolai could have either said "my bad", or backed up his assertion. In this case all he did was proceed to insult Asher.

If anything Nikolai was provoking Asher which is the ironic part of that thread. If Nikoali refuses to acknowledge this and continues to slander the trolls on this forum he is nothing but a twofaced hypocrite, or an idiot who doesn't understand reading comprehension.

I've already taken this with Asher and the mods in some PMs, but let's take this short, and this is my last post on the matter:

I did not edit when called out on it. I edited my post a few minutes after I posted, before the debacle began, it was because I had written bad English, wrong tense I think.

I remembered wrong. Simple as that. Which I acknowledged. My mistake was to get all winded up because of the respectless treatment I got because of a simple mistake. If I had been wise, I would just have explained myself and let it go. I did not. I said things in the following discussion I shouldn't have. I apologize for that. I also apologize for being wrong, it was not my intention to wrongly accuse Asher of anything.

When that is said, I am tired of being verbally abused by Asher in every second thread I visit. This time I started it, and I have nothing to say in my defence on that matter. But the last months I have been on the receiving end of all too much crap from him; I've been called a racist(of all things), and idiot and so on. And now a liar. I have been patient, but I feel it's gone too far, for too long now. I expect that to change.

As for reading comprehension, well, I am no native in English, so I often fail to see the nuances. I'm trying though.

[Nikolai]

(nikolai is often wrong and hardheaded, but not as astoundingly thick-skulled as BK)

I prefer the term "determined".

[Asher]

It's funny that both you and LOTM poke me with sticks all the time, then get upset when I hit back.

Is this about my African-American heritage again?

[rah]

Impressive. A sincere acknowledgement of a mistake followed by an equally sincere apology. Dale could learn from this, but we know he won't since he's still convinced it's all asher's fault.