Text 3476, 144 rader
Skriven 2007-02-18 20:07:39 av John Massey (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av Bob Klahn
Ärende: It's gettin deep.
=========================
Bob Klahn -> John Massey wrote:

 bk>>>  And your diversion here shows it. This has nothing to do with
 bk>>>  Bush dodging the draft.

 JM>> No Bob it has to do with what you will call reasonable
 JM>> conclusions and the length you will go to deny what others
 JM>> call reasonable conclusions.

 BK>  I don't have to go to lengths. Your reasonable conclusion is
 BK>  your opinion. To state something as a certain fact you have to
 BK>  back it up.

The person admitted he made it up. That not backing it up?

 JM>>>> claims to have witnessed a jet plane crash at a specific
 JM>>>> AFB, during a specified time period, when no record or any
 JM>>>> other witnesses of any such crash can be found, the
 JM>>>> reasonable conclusion  is the person is lying about that
 JM>>>> sighting.

 bk>>>  If that person ever made the claims you say he did.


Are you saying you have doubts the claims of witnessing planes crash while he
was on the base wasn't even made?

 bk>>   If you show evidence of any of it.

 JM>> The person made the claim, admitted he made the claim, and
 JM>> the whole thing was posted in one of the echos. I don't
 JM>> remember which one.

 BK>  Your point? When did the accusers post their proof?

I don't remember.

 BK>  They didn't
 BK>  when asked. As I said then, not in these exact words, I will not
 BK>  give the flamer one inch. If they had proof, they should have
 BK>  presented it.

They did.

 BK>  Their intention was not to promote truth, but
 BK>  purely to flame.

To point out that a person is not to be trusted because he lies, is not a
flame.

 bk>>>  Until you do, it's irrelevant.

To you perhaps.  Not to others.

 JM>> I can see why you would think so.

 BK>  So, you now say evidence is not necessary?

Nope, didn't say that at all. After all, I've seen the evidence.


 BK>  You now say we should
 BK>  all accept accusations without evidence?

Nope, didn't say that either. You keep forgetting I've seen the evidence.


 bk>>>   Those who accused never showed evidence for their accusations.

 JM>> Yes they have.

 BK>  Not when I asked for it.

Oh well, guess you didn't ask nice enough.

 BK>  If they did they did not point to it
 BK>  when I asked for the evidence. If they have the evidence why
 BK>  couldn't they just post it when asked?

Don't know.  You will have to ask them.

 bk>>>   If they didn't show evidence,

 JM>> They did show the evidence, you just claim not to have seen
 JM>> it.

 BK>  If I claim not to have seen it, then I didn't see it.

So you say but I have no evidence you didn't see it and therefore I have
no reason to believe you didn't see it.

 BK>  Would it kill them to repost it?

I doubt it.

 BK>  Well, is there a downside to that?

Not to me.

 BK> Just post it again.

I don't have it. I just saw it.

 bk>>>   I have no obligation to even consider the accusations.

 JM>> True

 BK>  Then the issue is settled.

If you say so.

 bk>>>   Knowing the predisposition of the
 bk>>>   right to trash the target of their ire with falsehoods,

 JM>> Just exactly the same way the left does.

 BK>  No, the "left" doesn't even come close to playing that game. The
 BK>  right is truly professional in smearing their opponents.

Get real the "right" could take lessons from the "left" on how to do dirty.
 bk>>>   why would I even consider any unsubstantiated accusations?

 JM>> The accusations in my example are not unsubstantiated, no
 JM>> matter how much you deny it.

 BK>  Then show the substantiation that was supposedly offered. If it
 BK>  is in my archives I can't find it without something to search
 BK>  for. Just give me some unique text, or even seldom encountered.
 BK>  If I have it then it will turn up.

 BK>  Otherwise, I can search in online sources. What I won't do is
 BK>  accept accusations against a poster without some evidentiary
 BK>  basis.

What ever floats your boat Bob. BUT, you have no authority to tell those of us
that actually followed the thread and have seen evidence and have come to the
conclusion that the sorry sack of shit was lying about this incident are wrong.
If pointing out a poster KNOWN  to lie, is a personal attack
as opposed to a friendly consumer warning, you know, don't believe anything he
says with out checking for yourself, then all you have to do is declare truth
not required in this echo.

--- Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)