Unsupported accusations

[VoxRat]

I reported this post (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=19778&postcount=95), because I think that letting this kind of crap pass without comment gets this forum off to a bad start:

This post either shows great ignorance or great dishonesty ... not sure which.A moderator suggested by PM that I bring this up for public discussion.

Now, I don't give the proverbial rat's ass (:D) if someone calls me "fucking asshole", or similar vituperations. Obviously it's an empty insult, not meant literally, says more about the insulter than the insultee, etc... and no one would expect any supporting documents. (And, hey! - it might be true!)

But if you're going to call something "dishonest" - let alone greatly dishonest - I hope this forum will enforce a "support or retract" policy. I take honesty very seriously.

And in this context "great ignorance" is not much better. I don't claim to be an expert on paleontology or geology (the disciplines in question here). But I have at least read several books on the subject. If someone - who has yet to read a single book on the topic, and gets all his information from some creationist source - calls me "greatly ignorant" on the subject, I think he should be at least encouraged by the staff to at least make a stab at supporting the insult.

Hey, I readily admit that there's a hell of a lot of paleontology and geology I don't know about. I suppose technically that means I am "greatly ignorant" in this area. But the clear implication of the post is that the ignorance in question is "great" compared to that of the poster. Again: I suggest a "support or retract" policy.

[mac_philo]

Are you making this point about all diagnoses of motivation and mental state, or just claims of 'dishonesty'?

Both are common here. Indeed Dave is a "victim" of the latter in the cited thread.

Bringing a distinction between supported and unsupported is not going to be practical in my opinion, and could lead to more rules-lawyering. It is trivial to add support to one's accusation, the worry then will be whether it is genuine support, or compelling support, or good-faith support.

[Febble]

I reported this post (http://www.talkrational.org/showpost.php?p=19778&postcount=95), because I think that letting this kind of crap pass without comment gets this forum off to a bad start:

This post either shows great ignorance or great dishonesty ... not sure which.A moderator suggested by PM that I bring this up for public discussion.

Now, I don't give the proverbial rat's ass (:D) if someone calls me "fucking asshole", or similar vituperations. Obviously it's an empty insult, not meant literally, says more about the insulter than the insultee, etc... and no one would expect any supporting documents. (And, hey! - it might be true!)

But if you're going to call something "dishonest" - let alone greatly dishonest - I hope this forum will enforce a "support or retract" policy. I take honesty very seriously.

And in this context "great ignorance" is not much better. I don't claim to be an expert on paleontology or geology (the disciplines in question here). But I have at least read several books on the subject. If someone - who has yet to read a single book on the topic, and gets all his information from some creationist source - calls me "greatly ignorant" on the subject, I think he should be at least encouraged by the staff to at least make a stab at supporting the insult.

Hey, I readily admit that there's a hell of a lot of paleontology and geology I don't know about. I suppose technically that means I am "greatly ignorant" in this area. But the clear implication of the post is that the ignorance in question is "great" compared to that of the poster. Again: I suggest a "support or retract" policy.

I sort of agree, but my first thoughts, I have been persuaded, were too naive.

[Rathpig]

Consider the source.

That is all.

[RexT]

I think that the standards of logic and reason should apply in the case of accusing dishonesty as it does for any other claim. The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the person making a claim. Our policy should be to protect the debate process, not to protect liars or people making erroneous claims of any sort, including claims of dishonesty.

How to police this is the question. One thing is certain - if we do not police this, we really do not have a debate board; we have another jungle room such as RnR. It's also rather hypocritical to suggest in some cases that we adhere to the common standards of rational debate and in other cases turn a blind eye.

For those reasons and with the rapid growth of this forum, I suggest we recognize that its time to end the honeymoon and begin to enforce a firmer set of guidelines and operating principles.

Let anyone make any claim they wish to make, including claims of dishonesty. But let that claimant be held to account by shouldering the burden of proof. First, unless the OP is about an issue of dishonesty, such an in-thread claim is automatically off topic and disruptive, it should be split off to its own thread where the claimant can then defend the claim, and it doesn't interrupt the parent thread. That will require an edit to a post that otherwise has relevant content to the OP. So be it. And if we are consistent in this principle, it should not be long until it gains acceptance and respect.

It isn't even necessary to make claims of dishonesty, as it is enough to show by way of evidence that a person has been or may have been dishonest. And in that way, the common standards of rational debate are maintained.

[Febble]

I like RexT's approach here, very much.

[Alethias]

I like RexT's approach here, very much.I do too. I dislike any approach that makes it wrong to call someone a liar and yet allows them to lie without repercussion. I especially love the evidence-based aspect of Rex's approach.

Accusations of dishonesty can easily descend into flame wars. That is not what we want. But requireing proof to let the accusation stand goes a long ways in mitigating that possibility.

[Worldtraveller]

It sounds good in writing, but how to implement it in practice?

I'm sure in that particular post, that dave feels he supported his case with the few sentences that followed. Obviously, most of us would disagree.

On the other hand, there are many (accurate, IMO) accusations against dave in that and other threads. They also support thier claims with evidence, but of course dave disagrees. I realize as mods we are required to make judgement calls, but this would get into a constant barrage of he said/she said type discussions. Presumably, pre-emptive splitting would cut that down, and we would hope that the posters would get a good idea of where the line is drawn?

I will state here that my inclination is to leave dave's post there, and let others decide for themselves. In the case of personal integrity and credibility, any reasonable objective observer will be able to draw their own conclusion as to who is or isn't a reliable source of information.

If it somehow crosses the line into libel, then further, more direct action would be taken, but I don't foresee that happening except in extreme cases (and certainly not were posters are posting under a psuedonym without any link back to their real identity).

[Ian Nerr]

I agree with Worldtraveller

[Febble]

Well, I liked RexT's suggestion of splitting out the accusation to another thread, because it's exactly the kind of derail that gets in the way of the interesting content. On the other hand the accused needs an opportunity to defend the charge without immediately having the stuff shunted out of immediate sight (and in any case, often the issue is at least laterally related to the original thread).

Then, if the split thread gets really away from forum specific issues, it can go to The Compost Heap, and from there, possibly, as a last resort, locked in The Charred Remains.

It would be nice, though, to think that at least sometimes, there would be a retraction/recantation and an apology.

[Ian Nerr]

What about indirect accusations? For example, quoting someone's post and then saying, "saying thusandsuch is very stupid, VERY STUPID" with the clear implication that the person quoted had sad thusandsuch. I think that situation warrants a retraction and apology too.

[Octavia]

How about this as a working suggestion to deal with accusations of lying/dishonesty?

Forum mod is reading forum threads, as per usual. They see Joe accuse Jane of lying. Mod quotes post, says "Do you have proof of that?" One of two things then happens:
1) Joe posts proof, exchange is left in thread.
2) Joe has no proof, whole exchange (including original offending post) is split to CR and locked.

[RexT]

The objective isn't to prove a claim beyond any doubt but the expectation that any claim whatever is supported with evidence/argument. Contrast that with a blatant and unsupported retort such as "you're a liar" or "you're dishonest". Or even retorts such as, "God exists" or "Atheists are wrong".

Anyway you slice it, such retorts are off topic, disruptive and insulting to the person accused and to others who may not know the personal history of that particular poster. From an outside observer's viewpoint it simply looks like an unnecessary disruption to distract from a weak argument.

The solution is to split off such claims and allow them to proceed in a separate thread. Of course the accuser/claimant may have no intention of supporting his or her accusation and hope to simply get away with making it in the middle of a debate/argument without any further action on it.

Be that as it may, at the very least I suggest that off topic claims be split off. Of course, it isn't necessary to make such claims in the first place. It is better (if you think a person is lying or otherwise being dishonest) to just present a superior argument and be satisfied with that. But if you feel strongly that it is necessary to further argue that your opponent has intentionally misrepresented information; simply go to the split off claim and make your case there. Or better still, make your own thread and put your claim of dishonesty there without being disruptive.

[VoxRat]

...Anyway you slice it, such retorts are off topic, disruptive and insulting to the person accused and to others who may not know the personal history of that particular poster. From an outside observer's viewpoint it simply looks like an unnecessary disruption to distract from a weak argument.

The solution is to split off such claims and allow them to proceed in a separate thread. Of course the accuser/claimant may have no intention of supporting his or her accusation and hope to simply get away with making it in the middle of a debate/argument without any further action on it.See that bolded part? I believe that's exactly the case here. And I think it should be strongly discouraged.

Now, I'm sympathetic to the objection that this involves an impractical workload on mods. But I think this discussion is one worth having. Maybe we'll end up concluding that nothing short of technical, legal libel warrants moderator intervention. Maybe so simple an action as flagging the offending post with an official Mods Disapprove of this Behavior icon... I don't know.


Be that as it may, at the very least I suggest that off topic claims be split off. Of course, it isn't necessary to make such claims in the first place. It is better (if you think a person is lying or otherwise being dishonest) to just present a superior argument and be satisfied with that. But if you feel strongly that it is necessary to further argue that your opponent has intentionally misrepresented information; simply go to the split off claim and make your case there. Or better still, make your own thread and put your claim of dishonesty there without being disruptive.These sound like thoughts worth considering; I worry again, though, about overburdening the mods.

[ravenscape]

I'd like to give something like this a try. We may find it's too cumbersome, but maybe not, at least once people figure out that unfounded accusations get dragged out of the host thread, and are sat down underneath a bright light for some interrogation.

[Febble]

What about indirect accusations? For example, quoting someone's post and then saying, "saying thusandsuch is very stupid, VERY STUPID" with the clear implication that the person quoted had sad thusandsuch. I think that situation warrants a retraction and apology too.

Well, yes, that's another issue I have a bee in my bonnet about, but I think it's a different issue.

I do think that misquoting someone in quotations or quote tags needs to be against the rules. It's one of the few occasions when I would support a moderator edit.

But I speak as someone who has been misquoted, and widely maligned for things I did not say (in one case there was a link to my original words, which were not what was quoted, but still the person wouldn't retract), quite a lot.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I certainly don't want to see accusations of lying banned outright any more than I want to see all insults banned outright. Those rules caused far more problems at IIDB than they solved.

The key to this seems to be the spirit of the rules, which is: don't be a jerk.

In other words, an accusation of dishonesty isn't a problem per se, it is accusing people of being dishonest and being a jerk about it (such as doing it as a non-substanstive one-liner or doing it in a mocking way) that is the problem.

So I say treat it just like an accusation of stupidity or an accusation of naivety. If it looks inflammatory then warn people for being inflammatory. If it doesn't, then leave it.

[VoxRat]

I certainly don't want to see accusations of lying banned outright any more than I want to see all insults banned outright. Those rules caused far more problems at IIDB than they solved.I absolutely agree with this. I want to be very clear: calling someone (or someone's post; I'm not all that concerned with splitting that particular hair) "dishonest" is perfectly OK. It's to be encouraged. Hopefully it will make people think twice about writing posts with flagrant disregard to truth. What I think should not be tolerated is calling someone (or some post) "dishonest" without so much as an attempt to justify the accusation. And, no, I don't think any rational person could read any justification in the post I reported here. (Whether or not Dave thinks so is beside the point.)
The key to this seems to be the spirit of the rules, which is: don't be a jerk.

In other words, an accusation of dishonesty isn't a problem per se, it is accusing people of being dishonest and being a jerk about it (such as doing it as a non-substanstive one-liner or doing it in a mocking way) that is the problem.

So I say treat it just like an accusation of stupidity or an accusation of naivety. If it looks inflammatory then warn people for being inflammatory. If it doesn't, then leave it.Well, in that spirit, I think the mods might need to exercise their discretion and determine whether or not a particular instance of this sort of behavior is part of a pattern. Once or twice, ehh - no big deal. But when it's someone's standard operating procedure, I think it's very much NOT in (what I think is) the spirit of this forum.

[Febble]

...Anyway you slice it, such retorts are off topic, disruptive and insulting to the person accused and to others who may not know the personal history of that particular poster. From an outside observer's viewpoint it simply looks like an unnecessary disruption to distract from a weak argument.

The solution is to split off such claims and allow them to proceed in a separate thread. Of course the accuser/claimant may have no intention of supporting his or her accusation and hope to simply get away with making it in the middle of a debate/argument without any further action on it.See that bolded part? I believe that's exactly the case here. And I think it should be strongly discouraged.

Now, I'm sympathetic to the objection that this involves an impractical workload on mods. But I think this discussion is one worth having. Maybe we'll end up concluding that nothing short of technical, legal libel warrants moderator intervention. Maybe so simple an action as flagging the offending post with an official Mods Disapprove of this Behavior icon... I don't know.


Be that as it may, at the very least I suggest that off topic claims be split off. Of course, it isn't necessary to make such claims in the first place. It is better (if you think a person is lying or otherwise being dishonest) to just present a superior argument and be satisfied with that. But if you feel strongly that it is necessary to further argue that your opponent has intentionally misrepresented information; simply go to the split off claim and make your case there. Or better still, make your own thread and put your claim of dishonesty there without being disruptive.These sound like thoughts worth considering; I worry again, though, about overburdening the mods.

I rather like the idea of a Mods Disapprove of this Behavior icon. A serious frowny. And perhaps an even more serious frowny for Admins Disapprove of this Behavior.

And a ginormous one for The Entire Staff Have Been Discussing This Post And Unanimously Disapprove Of Your Behavior.

Perhaps not.

Perhaps the old in-thread warning is all that's needed much of the time.

[Febble]

Well, in that spirit, I think the mods might need to exercise their discretion and determine whether or not a particular instance of this sort of behavior is part of a pattern. Once or twice, ehh - no big deal. But when it's someone's standard operating procedure, I think it's very much NOT in (what I think is) the spirit of this forum.

I agree.

[The AntiChris]

How about this as a working suggestion to deal with accusations of lying/dishonesty?

Forum mod is reading forum threads, as per usual. They see Joe accuse Jane of lying. Mod quotes post, says "Do you have proof of that?" One of two things then happens:
1) Joe posts proof, exchange is left in thread.
2) Joe has no proof, whole exchange (including original offending post) is split to CR and locked.What would constitute proof of lying/dishonesty?

Apart from some sort of explicit admission of dishonesty how do you 'prove' that someone is deliberately setting out to deceive and not just steadfastly, (possibly quite irrationally or genuinely mistakenly) clinging absolutely sincerely to an opposing version of the 'facts'?

Allow accusations of lying if you think it necessary but don't kid yourselves that those accusations can ever be 'proven'.

Chris

[RBH]

How about this as a working suggestion to deal with accusations of lying/dishonesty?

Forum mod is reading forum threads, as per usual. They see Joe accuse Jane of lying. Mod quotes post, says "Do you have proof of that?" One of two things then happens:
1) Joe posts proof, exchange is left in thread.
2) Joe has no proof, whole exchange (including original offending post) is split to CR and locked.What would constitute proof of lying/dishonesty?

Apart from some sort of explicit admission of dishonesty how do you 'prove' that someone is deliberately setting out to deceive and not just steadfastly, (possibly quite irrationally or genuinely mistakenly) clinging absolutely sincerely to an opposing version of the 'facts'?

Allow accusations of lying if you think it necessary but don't kid yourselves that those accusations can ever be 'proven'.

Chris"Proof" is impossible; "evidence supporting an assertion" is entirely possible, and desirable.

We run into this all the time with creationists. They ask "Do you have proofs of evolution?" (Where the plural "proofs" is a dead giveaway.) The appropriate question is "Do you have evidence for evolution?" And yeah, of course, we do: scads of it.

Where problems arise is in the use of the second person singular pronoun "you". A statement that begins "You are <fill in the blank>" is highly likely to be problematic. A statement that begins "That claim is <fill in the blank>" is less problematic unless it's bare to the world with no support offered. Where things are most likely to become inflammatory is when they're personalized.

[His Noodly Appendage]

The problem with splitting out assertions of dishonesty is that the split thread will be completely ignored by the habitually dishonest - leaving their lies in-thread, unchallenged.

A bit like insisting that police never enter a property, but simply knock at the door and request a person to step outside that they may be arrested. Good luck with that one.

And if you split the allegedly dishonest post out with the allegation, then you have a wondrous trolling tool. Simply cry "liar!" against any post that you don't like, and it disappears out of the thread.

[Febble]

Well, is it reasonable to ask accuser to demonstrate that the statement is untue, rather than that the stater is lying?

The first is much more interesting, anyway.

[RexT]

The problem with splitting out assertions of dishonesty is that the split thread will be completely ignored by the habitually dishonest - leaving their lies in-thread, unchallenged.

A bit like insisting that police never enter a property, but simply knock at the door and request a person to step outside that they may be arrested. Good luck with that one.

And if you split the allegedly dishonest post out with the allegation, then you have a wondrous trolling tool. Simply cry "liar!" against any post that you don't like, and it disappears out of the thread.I disagree.

Suppose I start a thread where I assert X. You then say, "Rex is a liar". I may be a liar but this is a separate matter unrelated to the OP. A mod splits your accusation into a separate thread, provided you intend to pursue your accusation. If not, your accusation goes to TCR.

Now, before you called me a liar, you must have disagreed with my assertion of X. No problem, just rebut X. You see, my assertion of X does not go unchallenged and your accusation can be pursued in its own thread whether I show up to defend myself or not. It's a win win unless I really am a liar and you can substantiate the accusation. Your accusation thread, if substantiated, will establish that I am a liar which can be used for future reference should I later try to tell the same lie again.

[BWE]

Bullshit. That issue is one of the most entertaining parts of forum discussion and should neither be ignored and allowed nor ban the user off the top.

Splitting the thread to call out the accuser is the basic reason all this discussion happens.

Please, that is the right call. If a user fails to respond in a thread they've been called out in or the accuser fails to respond, then other action but basically, that's cage match time.

[The AntiChris]

What would constitute proof of lying/dishonesty?"Proof" is impossible; "evidence supporting an assertion" is entirely possible, and desirable.This misses the point of my question. What would constitute evidence of "lying"?

What I mean is, what would constitute evidence of a deliberate attempt to deceive/mislead as distinct from evidence of a dogged but sincere adherence, no matter how unreasonable it might seem, to an opposing version of the 'facts'?
Where things are most likely to become inflammatory is when they're personalized.Things don't get much more personal than accusations of lying (directed at the person) or lies (directed at a person's statements). They both unambiguously imply that a person has dishonest motives.

If you want to allow accusations of lying (as an acceptable aspect of any frank exchange of views ;)), fine. But if you insist that accusations of lying are supported by evidence, then, unless you've got a clear idea of what might constitute 'evidence', I think you're just giving yourselves potential problems. :dunno:

Chris

[RexT]

If you want to allow accusations of lying (as an acceptable aspect of any frank exchange of views ;)), fine. But if you insist that accusations of lying are supported by evidence, then, unless you've got a clear idea of what might constitute 'evidence', I think you're just giving yourselves potential problems. :dunno:

ChrisSure, and we'll face problems either way it goes. For some reason you can't please everyone. But suppose we were looking for a philosophical approach toward building a great forum. Are you saying that letting accusations of lying go unchallenged will make this forum one of the best? If so, how? If not, what is the strategy we need to adopt?

At any rate, I don't see calling someone a liar as part of a frank exchange of views. But, there are liars and there are ways to catch a person in a lie, and I think we all know pretty much how that works. Johnny calls into work sick. The boss shortly thereafter finds Johnny playing golf and Johnny's ass is caught. See, it's not impossible. Why should the burden of proof for this particular claim be any different than for other claims? Special pleading? It may be more difficult but all the more reason to refrain from making the claim in the first place. But for whatever reason that doesn't seem to deter some folks from making it anyway.

But if you or others prefer a no holds barred frank exchange, that's perfectly reasonable and I can recommend just the place for you. It's called RnR.

[Febble]

I'm starting to see the point - that it is no less possible to provide evidence to support the statement that someone a liar as it is to provide evidence that a statement is untrue.

And sometimes perhaps the former is necessary in a discussion.

But mostly, not only inflammatory, but boring. I'm much more interested in the evidence for and against the truth of a proposition than I am in whether the person making a false proposition is doing it intentionally, and usually the first is more germane to the thread in question. Unless the thread is called something like: "why does Kent Hovind lie?"

[The AntiChris]

Are you saying that letting accusations of lying go unchallenged will make this forum one of the best?No. Go back and read what I said.
At any rate, I don't see calling someone a liar as part of a frank exchange of views.Nor do I. But I thought that's what you were advocating ("Let anyone make any claim they wish to make, including claims of dishonesty."). :dunno:
But, there are liars and there are ways to catch a person in a lie, and I think we all know pretty much how that works. Johnny calls into work sick. The boss shortly thereafter finds Johnny playing golf and Johnny's ass is caught. See, it's not impossible. But surely it was self-evident that I was asking what might constitute evidence of deliberate intent to deceive in the context of an online discussion? This has still not been answered.
Why should the burden of proof for this particular claim be any different than for other claims? Special pleading? It may be more difficult but all the more reason to refrain from making the claim in the first place. Then why not discourage such accsuations at the outset?

In my experience, no one involved in a non-humorous online discussion deliberately sets out to deceive by making factually inaccurate statements. Most people say stupid stuff because they' really are stupid or because they're just ideologically blinkered - not out of malicious intent.
But if you or others prefer a no holds barred frank exchange, that's perfectly reasonable and I can recommend just the place for you. It's called RnR.Uncalled for. :(

Chris

[Febble]

In my experience, no one involved in a non-humorous online discussion deliberately sets out to deceive by making factually inaccurate statements. Most people say stupid stuff because they' really are stupid or because they're just ideologically blinkered - not out of malicious intent.

I think this is generally true. However, I have noticed people trying to say that they didn't say what they (demonstrably) did say, possibly because they have realised that it was a losing argument, and want to save face. Unfortunately, the internet tends to preserve things rather well!

OTOH, I have had people state that I have said things I didn't say, and even linked to what I DID say to support their claim. I assume in that case that they are so sure that I meant something different from what my words actually said that they cannot believe I didn't say what they thought I said.

They think I am lying, in other words, and use my own words to prove it, when in fact my own words prove I wasn't. I don't think THEY are lying - I think they honestly can't see the meaning of the words I wrote - or the difference between the words I wrote and the meaning they extract from it.

[The AntiChris]

I'm starting to see the point - that it is no less possible to provide evidence to support the statement that someone a liar as it is to provide evidence that a statement is untrue.Really?

I'm surprised at this. I'd have thought that establishing a person's actual motives for making a claim is far more problematic than establishing the truth or falsity of that claim. :dunno:

And sometimes perhaps the former is necessary in a discussion.What kind of example did you have in mind? I'm hard-pressd to think of a situation (in an online discussion) where an accusation of lying advances an argument more effectively than simply exposing the factual inaccuracies made by one's opponent.

Chris

[The AntiChris]

However, I have noticed people trying to say that they didn't say what they (demonstrably) did say, possibly because they have realised that it was a losing argument, and want to save face. Unfortunately, the internet tends to preserve things rather well!Quite. No need for accusations of lying.

OTOH, I have had people state that I have said things I didn't say, and even linked to what I DID say to support their claim. I assume in that case that they are so sure that I meant something different from what my words actually said that they cannot believe I didn't say what they thought I said.

They think I am lying, in other words, and use my own words to prove it, when in fact my own words prove I wasn't. I don't think THEY are lying - I think they honestly can't see the meaning of the words I wrote - or the difference between the words I wrote and the meaning they extract from it.So sometimes people imply that you're lying. It happens to me all the time (people make unwarranted assumptions) - it's bloody annoying!

Still, I'm not sure what this has to do with what TR's attitude should be to explicit accusations of dishonesty? :dunno:

Chris

[RexT]

Are you saying that letting accusations of lying go unchallenged will make this forum one of the best?No. Go back and read what I said.Just feeling for clarification, which you answered.
Nor do I. But I thought that's what you were advocating ("Let anyone make any claim they wish to make, including claims of dishonesty."). :dunno:Yup. Sometimes people lie. Do you deny that? If I think I can show convincing evidence of that, I should be able to do it. It's considered pretty offensive by some to be lied to. But calling a liar a liar should not be done in such a way that the thread in which the lie is perpetrated becomes about the liar and not about the OP.
But surely it was self-evident that I was asking what might constitute evidence of deliberate intent to deceive in the context of an online discussion? This has still not been answered.Well, what do you want me to do; invent a hypothetical scenario and show you how to resolve it? I should think that if a person claims someone has intentionally lied that they already have the evidence to back it up. Not merely because it's a gut feeling.
Then why not discourage such accsuations at the outset?That is actually the whole point of my proposal. If people are expected to backup their accusations it should discourage them from making claims they can't support. But if you have a better plan we'd all like to hear it.

In my experience, no one involved in a non-humorous online discussion deliberately sets out to deceive by making factually inaccurate statements. Most people say stupid stuff because they' really are stupid or because they're just ideologically blinkered - not out of malicious intent.Yeah well, that's probably the case most of the time.
Uncalled for. :(

ChrisMaybe, and if so I apologize. But the point is that TR is looking for solutions to problems that have plagued IIDB, RnR and other forums. We intend to NOT be them. Thus, we not only need solutions but original solutions. If you have any fresh ideas we would certainly be happy to listen.

[His Noodly Appendage]

There's also a difference between lying and inconsistency.

It often happens that a person will claim A, A->B and !B at different times, often at a level or two of indirection.

For instance, seebs' claiming that the bible should in no way be taken literally (and that to do so is ludicrous), when he has previously affirmed a claim that Jesus was actually bodily resurrected, based on scriptural accounts.

How does one respond to that without impugning either his intelligence or his honesty?

[Febble]

I'm starting to see the point - that it is no less possible to provide evidence to support the statement that someone a liar as it is to provide evidence that a statement is untrue.Really?

I'm surprised at this. I'd have thought that establishing a person's actual motives for making a claim is far more problematic than establishing the truth or falsity of that claim. :dunno:

Well, I will concede that when the proposition is a tight logical argument then it may actually be possible to prove that it is false, as in mathematical proof. For everything else, we simply have to evaluate the fit of our model to the data. I'm not sure that in principle the model "this person is deliberately lying" is any harder to fit to data than any other. It would depend on the data. A confession on another board that the post was a windup for lulz might be pretty good evidence for the "deliberate lie" model".

And sometimes perhaps the former is necessary in a discussion.What kind of example did you have in mind? I'm hard-pressd to think of a situation (in an online discussion) where an accusation of lying advances an argument more effectively than simply exposing the factual inaccuracies made by one's opponent.

Chris

Well, if someone changes their story half way through a debate in response to a new rebuttal, and claims that what they originally meant was what they now state, but also refuses to concede points that are invalidated by the earlier interpretation of their words, sometime it's important to show that the story has been deliberately changed to suit the current argument.

That they can't have meant Y when they said X earlier as they now claim, because if they'd meant Y earlier it would have invalidated the point X was stated to make, and which they still claim is valid.

Showing that they must have meant X when they said X and not Y as they now claim i.e. that they are lying when they claim that they meant Y, is the only alternative to conceding that the point supported by X is invalid.

If you see what I mean.

"Concede the point made by X, or concede that you were lying when you said you didn't meant X you meant, Y."

[The AntiChris]

Well, what do you want me to do; invent a hypothetical scenario and show you how to resolve it?Well, yes. The whole point is that evidence for dishonest intentions in the 'real' world is far easier to obtain than it is to provide evidence in support of accusations of online lying. My concern is that by implying that accusations of [online] lying can be supported satisfactorily you may inadvertently be raising the expectations of what people think may be acceptable (and thereby creating unnecessary work for yourselves).
I should think that if a person claims someone has intentionally lied that they already have the evidence to back it up. Not merely because it's a gut feeling.Sure. That's perfectly reasonable.

Then why not discourage such accsuations at the outset?
That is actually the whole point of my proposal.If this was your intention, then fine. But that's not the sense I got from your (and subsequent) comment(s).

If people are expected to backup their accusations it should discourage them from making claims they can't support.It really depends on what you (TR) will accept as evidence of lying. That's why I asked what might constitute evidence of a deliberate intention to deceive. I asked because experience (as a mod) tells me that people have very disparate interpretations of what constitutes evidence of lying - very often dependent on their own inability to remain objective on certain topics.


But if you have a better plan we'd all like to hear it.Unnecessary.

Maybe, and if so I apologize. If it weren't for the "Maybe" I'd graciously accept your apology.
But the point is that TR is looking for solutions to problems that have plagued IIDB, RnR and other forums. We intend to NOT be them. Thus, we not only need solutions but original solutions. If you have any fresh ideas we would certainly be happy to listen.It seems to me you're severely limiting your options if you're going to reject out of hand anything that's been used at IIDB. :dunno:

I agree that insisting that accusations of lying are supported by evidence could discourage these types of allegations but only so long as you (TR) emphasise that evidence of a dishonest motive is required (and not simply bone-headed refusal to accept one version of the 'facts').

This was why I asked my original question.

Chris

[RexT]

There's also a difference between lying and inconsistency.

It often happens that a person will claim A, A->B and !B at different times, often at a level or two of indirection.

For instance, seebs' claiming that the bible should in no way be taken literally (and that to do so is ludicrous), when he has previously affirmed a claim that Jesus was actually bodily resurrected, based on scriptural accounts.

How does one respond to that without impugning either his intelligence or his honesty?Yeah, well admittedly I have changed my mind on occasion and if you read far enough back on my posts you would say that I'm being inconsistent. But if you brought an instance of my inconsistency to my attention and asked me which position I actually support; I would explain that I changed my mind and now support my current statements, or something like that.

I suppose you're talking about an inconsistency that occurred over a very short time? Well, one of the things I admire about Lizzie is that she makes a huge effort to report and discuss that she has changed her mind (I won't mention the details) to let everyone know that she wasn't intentionally being inconsistent. And still there are people saying that she is being inconsistent. She learns fast and progresses more quickly than most, so its pretty hard to keep up with her changes. But I know that she isn't intentionally being inconsistent; she's just highly adaptive and smart. (brilliant really, but I wouldn't want it to go to her head : )) So for Lizzie, being consistent means constantly updating and upgrading her view of things.

So yes, I'd say there is a difference between lying and inconsistency.

[Febble]

There's also a difference between lying and inconsistency.

It often happens that a person will claim A, A->B and !B at different times, often at a level or two of indirection.

Well, that's true.

For instance, seebs' claiming that the bible should in no way be taken literally (and that to do so is ludicrous), when he has previously affirmed a claim that Jesus was actually bodily resurrected, based on scriptural accounts.

How does one respond to that without impugning either his intelligence or his honesty?

Well, sometimes (and I don't know the exact instance) by first re-reading what was actually said, to check that it wasn't something other than the interpretation you made at the time. E.g did seeps really say that the bible should in no way be taken literally? And if so, could he only have meant that none of it was literally true? Or did he in fact say, or mean, that the a priori assumption that any given part of the bible is literally true is not a safe assumption?

Which is not an argument I want to get into here, of course, and you have also, rightly, held me answerable to apparent (and possibly real) inconsistencies in my position. But I have also been (elsewhere) accused of inconsistencies in my position that are not inconsistencies in any sense, but are merely inconsistencies between how my (rather carefully chosen) words were heard and what they meant, which is perfectly consistent with what I have said on other occasions.

And, interestingly, often this misunderstandings arise from the good old distinction between the words like "some", "many" and "all" (as may or may not be the case in your seebs example, and is certainly the case with many of Dave Hawkins posts. Just because all A is B doesn't mean that all B is A. Sometimes people are accused of lying (and this has happened to me) because I am accused of contradicting myself when I post in one post that all A is B and in another than not all B is A.

And sometimes it isn't facially obvious that this is the issue.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Is it really necessary to split-out in cases where the accuser has already provided the appropriate evidence in his post? I hope not, but other action may be necessary. There have been compulsive liars on IIDB (bfniii is one example that comes to mind, but there were several others) whose main tactic is to lie repeatedly about the contents of previous posts: denying that he is evading a topic he had repeatedly refused to address when propmted, insisting that he had addressed a point in a previous post (sometimes providing a link to an actual post, in which he nevertheless evaded the issue), accusing others of failing to answer questions which they had actually answered several times in other posts, and so on. Very soon the entire thread got bogged down in this sort of exchange: I (and others) were prevented by the rules from explicitly calling him a liar, and threads dragged on for page after page with nothing new being added: just endless dodging of the same questions (and lies about having answered them) and endless denial of the existence of inconvenient answers from others.

Mere splitting-out wouldn't have helped there, particulary if the "discussion" was allowed to continue. More drastic action would have been needed, such as somehow blocking the liar from further participation on the thread until questions to the liar were actually answered, or until the liar was somehow forced to accept the existence of the answers already given to his/her own questions. Unfortunately I'm not sure how such a system would work.

[The AntiChris]

A confession on another board that the post was a windup for lulz might be pretty good evidence for the "deliberate lie" model".Sure. I never said or implied that it was impossible. The point is that the vast majority of accusations of dishonesty are the result of frustration rather than any evidence of dishonesty.
And sometimes perhaps the former is necessary in a discussion.What kind of example did you have in mind? I'm hard-pressd to think of a situation (in an online discussion) where an accusation of lying advances an argument more effectively than simply exposing the factual inaccuracies made by one's opponent.
Well, if someone changes their story half way through a debate in response to a new rebuttal, and claims that what they originally meant was what they now state, but also refuses to concede points that are invalidated by the earlier interpretation of their words, sometime it's important to show that the story has been deliberately changed to suit the current argument.

That they can't have meant Y when they said X earlier as they now claim, because if they'd meant Y earlier it would have invalidated the point X was stated to make, and which they still claim is valid.

Showing that they must have meant X when they said X and not Y as they now claim i.e. that they are lying when they claim that they meant Y, is the only alternative to conceding that the point supported by X is invalid.

If you see what I mean.:yikes: :p

It seems to me that all we can legitimately do in this situation is to expose as explicitly and unambiguously as we can the contradiction or inconsistency in an opponent's argument. An accusation of lying in this case is simply vindictiveness borne out of frustration. The charitable line to take is to assume that our opponent is mistaken and, if they refuse to accept our crushing demolition of their position, then they're merely demonstrating their own stupidity.

After all, we're all capable, against all the odds, of sincerely believing some pretty daft things at times. ;)

Chris

[VoxRat]

Clearly(?) there are going to be all kinds of grey areas.

But sometimes it's pretty cut and dried.

Individual X says "that post is hugely dishonest" - and then proceeds to say not a word about how or why. That, I think, need not cause too much hand wringing, soul-searching or sleepless nights on the part of the mods.

[Febble]

A confession on another board that the post was a windup for lulz might be pretty good evidence for the "deliberate lie" model".Sure. I never said or implied that it was impossible. The point is that the vast majority of accusations of dishonesty are the result of frustration rather than any evidence of dishonesty.

Yes, I agree. Very much, actually. My default position was that accusations of lying should be against the rules. It's just I've been persuaded that legislating against it isn't the best approach. I'd still want to strongly discourage it, though, and suggest that people concentrate on debunking the statement itself, not on demonstrating that it was an intentional untruth. Which is, inter alia, boring.

What kind of example did you have in mind? I'm hard-pressd to think of a situation (in an online discussion) where an accusation of lying advances an argument more effectively than simply exposing the factual inaccuracies made by one's opponent.
Well, if someone changes their story half way through a debate in response to a new rebuttal, and claims that what they originally meant was what they now state, but also refuses to concede points that are invalidated by the earlier interpretation of their words, sometime it's important to show that the story has been deliberately changed to suit the current argument.

That they can't have meant Y when they said X earlier as they now claim, because if they'd meant Y earlier it would have invalidated the point X was stated to make, and which they still claim is valid.

Showing that they must have meant X when they said X and not Y as they now claim i.e. that they are lying when they claim that they meant Y, is the only alternative to conceding that the point supported by X is invalid.

If you see what I mean.:yikes: :p

It seems to me that all we can legitimately do in this situation is to expose as explicitly and unambiguously as we can the contradiction or inconsistency in an opponent's argument. An accusation of lying in this case is simply vindictiveness borne out of frustration. The charitable line to take is to assume that our opponent is mistaken and, if they refuse to accept our crushing demolition of their position, then they're merely demonstrating their own stupidity.

After all, we're all capable, against all the odds, of sincerely believing some pretty daft things at times. ;)

Chris

True. That's why I'm against accusations of lying. In the vast majority of cases, I think that what looks like a lie is muddled thinking. Sometimes on the part of the accused, and sometimes on the part of the accuser.

[RexT]

Well, yes. The whole point is that evidence for dishonest intentions in the 'real' world is far easier to obtain than it is to provide evidence in support of accusations of online lying. My concern is that by implying that accusations of [online] lying can be supported satisfactorily you may inadvertently be raising the expectations of what people think may be acceptable (and thereby creating unnecessary work for yourselves).I've already implied this somewhere above, but again; the point (for me anyway) is not to establish a court of law where an accuser faces a defendant with all the attorneys, judge and jury present. The point is to develop an ethos, wherein, it is frowned on to accuse another of lying. I think you and I probably agree on that. So how are we going to enforce such a thing? Well, first off, you really can't enforce an ethos unless it is an ethos of force, which is not what we want our ethos to be. We'd rather build something better than that. Most of us don't want to construct a police state, which I think IIDB has become. And yet, we don't want a jungle room like RnR, and RnR is fine for those who need to express from their reptilian brain.

We want an environment where everyone can speak freely and present whatever idea(s) they hold to be true or at least worthy to present for debate. The caption below our Logo reads "A Republic of Freethought". That in a nutshell is the ethos we would like to create. But not everyone who is a member here will share this idea (so why are they a member here?) and sometimes people do need to make contact with their reptilian brain and so forth. So there is a vast gulf between the dream and the reality. But not an insurmountable one. And whatever work is required to achieve this dream, I for one am prepared to do it.

So rather than simply enforce some rule that begins to limit speech (which I think is what you have in mind) I'm looking for a way to avoid such Draconian measures while still creating an ethos of freethought and also avoiding the excessive abuses that stem from an unchecked reptilian brain.

It really depends on what you (TR) will accept as evidence of lying. That's why I asked what might constitute evidence of a deliberate intention to deceive. I asked because experience (as a mod) tells me that people have very disparate interpretations of what constitutes evidence of lying - very often dependent on their own inability to remain objective on certain topics. To finish the thought I began above, my proposal is not about setting any particular standard of evidence to convict a liar, but rather, to allow such accusations a place to be aired in a manner that conforms to the ethos we are creating. We don't have any rule that says if member X claims Y that he or she must follow such and such evidentiary protocol or standard. But it is expected that if anyone makes a claim of any sort that the burden of proof rests on the claimant. How they deal with that burden is their concern. I merely suggested that claims of lying be split off to a separate thread, which is our practice for any offensive or off topic material anyway. And if the claimant and defendant wish to pursue, they can do so in a thread specifically for that purpose, leaving the parent thread uninterrupted. And if one or the other do not wish to pursue they do not have to, but it is their choice. And I think this achieves as great a level of fairness as can be achieved without having to use a big stick. If we make this a common practice it should eventually permeate the ethos and dissuade folks form making such claims in the first place, or so I think.


It seems to me you're severely limiting your options if you're going to reject out of hand anything that's been used at IIDB. :dunno:Straw man. We are not scrapping everything learned from IIDB, and not duplicating it either.

I agree that insisting that accusations of lying are supported by evidence could discourage these types of allegations but only so long as you (TR) emphasise that evidence of a dishonest motive is required (and not simply bone-headed refusal to accept one version of the 'facts').I'm not insisting on anything. Just proposing we split these kinds of accusations off to a separate thread and not making it against the rules to make them. And making the point that if such accusations are pursued they should be pursued with the understanding that the burden of proof is on the claimant. It seems to me that if my claims got the attention of staff who places them in their own thread, that I might be damn careful not to place myself in the embarrassing position of making a claim I damn well can't support. But maybe that's just me.

[The AntiChris]

It seems to me you're severely limiting your options if you're going to reject out of hand anything that's been used at IIDB. :dunno:Straw man. We are not scrapping everything learned from IIDB, and not duplicating it either. I'm sure that makes sense to someone. :D
I agree that insisting that accusations of lying are supported by evidence could discourage these types of allegations but only so long as you (TR) emphasise that evidence of a dishonest motive is required (and not simply bone-headed refusal to accept one version of the 'facts').I'm not insisting on anything. I thought it was rather implied by your: "If people are expected to backup their accusations it should discourage them from making claims they can't support." :dunno:
Just proposing we split these kinds of accusations off to a separate thread and not making it against the rules to make them. And making the point that if such accusations are pursued they should be pursued with the understanding that the burden of proof is on the claimant.I wish you the best of luck. :wave:

Chris

[BWE]

In my experience, no one involved in a non-humorous online discussion deliberately sets out to deceive by making factually inaccurate statements. Most people say stupid stuff because they' really are stupid or because they're just ideologically blinkered - not out of malicious intent.

I think this is generally true. However, I have noticed people trying to say that they didn't say what they (demonstrably) did say, possibly because they have realised that it was a losing argument, and want to save face. Unfortunately, the internet tends to preserve things rather well!

OTOH, I have had people state that I have said things I didn't say, and even linked to what I DID say to support their claim. I assume in that case that they are so sure that I meant something different from what my words actually said that they cannot believe I didn't say what they thought I said.

They think I am lying, in other words, and use my own words to prove it, when in fact my own words prove I wasn't. I don't think THEY are lying - I think they honestly can't see the meaning of the words I wrote - or the difference between the words I wrote and the meaning they extract from it.
In which case, reasonable people can see an error of judgement. Quote mining, or directly manufactured 'facts' do not fall under this category.

[Jet Black]

True. That's why I'm against accusations of lying. In the vast majority of cases, I think that what looks like a lie is muddled thinking. Sometimes on the part of the accused, and sometimes on the part of the accuser.


The problem is, that as soon as you stop people from saying certain things, they'll come up with a way to get around it.

"you're a liar" becomes "you're either lying or you don't know what you're talking about" or something else more subtle.

Once I even had one guy* (to his credit, I thought it was highly funny actually ) visibly edited the post, and in the edit comments said something along the lines of "edited because I'm not allowed to say someone is lying"

*I know who you are :p

[Jet Black]

In which case, reasonable people can see an error of judgement. Quote mining, or directly manufactured 'facts' do not fall under this category.

but then does a copy of a quote mine? many of the mined quotes are propagated through creationist sources such as AiG, but then just passed on by people like Dave hawkins. Take the Quigley quote which he likes at the moment... I don't think anyone here has read the actual book.

[Febble]

True. That's why I'm against accusations of lying. In the vast majority of cases, I think that what looks like a lie is muddled thinking. Sometimes on the part of the accused, and sometimes on the part of the accuser.


The problem is, that as soon as you stop people from saying certain things, they'll come up with a way to get around it.

"you're a liar" becomes "you're either lying or you don't know what you're talking about" or something else more subtle.

Once I even had one guy* (to his credit, I thought it was highly funny actually ) visibly edited the post, and in the edit comments said something along the lines of "edited because I'm not allowed to say someone is lying"

*I know who you are :p

Yes. I have been successfully talked into this position. I'm now of the position a) that people need to back up accusations of lying with documentary evidence, and that b) it is much more interesting to discuss why a statement is untrue than whether the person making it knew that it was untrue.

Both of which can be encouraged by in-thread exhortations, I would have thought. After all, no-one wants to be boring.

[BWE]

In which case, reasonable people can see an error of judgement. Quote mining, or directly manufactured 'facts' do not fall under this category.

but then does a copy of a quote mine? many of the mined quotes are propagated through creationist sources such as AiG, but then just passed on by people like Dave hawkins. Take the Quigley quote which he likes at the moment... I don't think anyone here has read the actual book.

A quote mine which might be accidental is certainly excusable but the offender really should be called out to admit that they don't know what the original context was and that they were wrong to use it and that they apologize.

To any person with a normal or average sense of decency, this is easy to do. Who wants to win at the expense of dishonesty? That's no fun unless you see the goal as more important than the means. I enjoy being a culture warrior but integrity of argument is far more important to my view of culture than any system or belief could possibly be.

My 2c. Reasonable people can figure this stuff out. If asked for honest and as far as possible impartial judgment, I would accept almost anyone at this board, as hard as this may be to hear, even Dave, to judge whether I lied or quote-mined. Of course I would want the opportunity to defend myself but that shouldn't take a reasonable person more than 2 posts to do.

The problem is that if we allow a quote-mine to go unaddressed, it gives it legitimacy. If an accusation of dishonesty is addressed immediately with a resolution being forced by the community, then the spirit of the culture war is upheld. On both sides I would add.

[BWE]

True. That's why I'm against accusations of lying. In the vast majority of cases, I think that what looks like a lie is muddled thinking. Sometimes on the part of the accused, and sometimes on the part of the accuser.


The problem is, that as soon as you stop people from saying certain things, they'll come up with a way to get around it.

"you're a liar" becomes "you're either lying or you don't know what you're talking about" or something else more subtle.

Once I even had one guy* (to his credit, I thought it was highly funny actually ) visibly edited the post, and in the edit comments said something along the lines of "edited because I'm not allowed to say someone is lying"

*I know who you are :p

Yes. I have been successfully talked into this position. I'm now of the position a) that people need to back up accusations of lying with documentary evidence, and that b) it is much more interesting to discuss why a statement is untrue than whether the person making it knew that it was untrue.

Both of which can be encouraged by in-thread exhortations, I would have thought. After all, no-one wants to be boring.

I agree with point a and b but the conclusion I strongly disagree with. Honest people are basically honest. Locks aren't to keep out thieves, they're to deter mostly honest people from making a bad decision. Exhortations almost always lead nowhere. A cage thread for the accuser and accused to settle the issue before returning to the playground forces decency where otherwise it might be skirted by those on either side of any discussion.

In that case it becomes just as uncomfortable to make a false or hasty accusation as it does to be accused. It also would encourage a much more civil tone from posters who might be frustrated by a perceived lack of integrity. Rather than saying "You lying sack of shit. Lying liar McLies.", you might instead ask for a cage thread. See?

It seems that way to me anyway. I know everyone has different experiences with moderation but I've never had a problem with that end the same way I've had problems with the impunity a quote-mine or false statement is delivered.

[DMB]

This may be a British thing, but there are some interesting ways of making an accusation of lying without using the actual words. A long-gone Cabinet Secretary used the expression "being economical with the truth" (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/127700.html), which means a kind of lying by omission. Would that mean a split-off in the same way as an outright accusation of lying?

I feel it shouldn't, because it is such a typical creationist tactic as part of a quote-mining spree.

Darwin himself admitted that the idea that an eye could have evolved by natural selection was absurd.
To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.

Remainder of paragraph from Darwin:
Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound.

Now I would maintain that any creationist who makes such a post would be literally economical with the truth and pointing this out (with the evidence) in the thread should not merit a split, since it such an important part of any argument to expose such creationist tactics.

[BWE]

The reason I think an accusation needs its own mini thread to sort out is that the transgression gets recorded in an easy to find place, not buried in a long thread. Have you ever seen a real lie or quote-mine get called out and settled? It would set up a sort of forced integrity so often lacking in forum discussions.

I haven't slept in 31 hours. Woo hoo! Pile on the work this friday afternoon. It'll be there monday morning assholes.

Oops, excuse me, is that buzzing in my head bothering anyone?

[VoxRat]

The reason I think an accusation needs its own mini thread to sort out is that the transgression gets recorded in an easy to find place, not buried in a long thread. Have you ever seen a real lie or quote-mine get called out and settled? It would set up a sort of forced integrity so often lacking in forum discussions.

I haven't slept in 31 hours. Woo hoo! Pile on the work this friday afternoon. It'll be there monday morning assholes.

Oops, excuse me, is that buzzing in my head bothering anyone?I wish I could make that much sense after 31 sleepless hours.

Or 3.

[DMB]

As I have been moaning elsewhere, I am in the middle of moving house and have made myself ill from lack of sleep (a total of 13 1/2 hours over four nights). But my husband ordered me to take some time off, so here I am! :D

[BWE]

The reason I think an accusation needs its own mini thread to sort out is that the transgression gets recorded in an easy to find place, not buried in a long thread. Have you ever seen a real lie or quote-mine get called out and settled? It would set up a sort of forced integrity so often lacking in forum discussions.

I haven't slept in 31 hours. Woo hoo! Pile on the work this friday afternoon. It'll be there monday morning assholes.

Oops, excuse me, is that buzzing in my head bothering anyone?I wish I could make that much sense after 31 sleepless hours.

Or 3.
It's weird. Once every 45 days I get about 15mb worth of excel spreadsheets of which not are internally consistent. I have to turn them into a 4 shett spreadsheet that makes pretty pictures. It takes about 40 hours but I usually have 3 days to do it. I also have other work in those 3 days so I learned to work 1 24 hour shift. It does make me goofy but apparently, I'm the only one who notices.

[DMB]

The reason I think an accusation needs its own mini thread to sort out is that the transgression gets recorded in an easy to find place, not buried in a long thread. Have you ever seen a real lie or quote-mine get called out and settled? It would set up a sort of forced integrity so often lacking in forum discussions.

I haven't slept in 31 hours. Woo hoo! Pile on the work this friday afternoon. It'll be there monday morning assholes.

Oops, excuse me, is that buzzing in my head bothering anyone?I wish I could make that much sense after 31 sleepless hours.

Or 3.
It's weird. Once every 45 days I get about 15mb worth of excel spreadsheets of which not are internally consistent. I have to turn them into a 4 shett spreadsheet that makes pretty pictures. It takes about 40 hours but I usually have 3 days to do it. I also have other work in those 3 days so I learned to work 1 24 hour shift. It does make me goofy but apparently, I'm the only one who notices.

Ah, but how old are you? I could do that kind of thing once; not any more. :(

[BWE]

Ah, but how old are you? I could do that kind of thing once; not any more. :(
"As old as my tongue and a little bit older than my teeth." :) (Kris Kringle from Miracle on 42nd street)

At any rate, far too old to think it should be normal.