It may well be a common practice in town square debate for one to call another a liar. Nevertheless, I cannot and will not tolerate it here on the RF - if for no other reason than flame wars compound work for all the moderators, not just me.
On the other point, the forum has a history of not tolerating Freepers making false claims about themselves, whether false military service records or false theological credentials or identities.
“The situation concerning ‘fact’ in theological debate is no different than the crevo debate. In the eyes of the evolutionists, citing their sources, some creationists are habitual liars. And vice versa.”
Again, I'm not talking about stuff that is open to interpretation, or stuff that depends on which sources you wish to believe, and which sources you consider completely out to lunch.
I'm NOT speaking about, let's say, one of the anti-Catholic bigots quoting an anti-Catholic site to describe Catholic belief. The source may be worthless, but if the website actually says, “All Catholics are Mary-worshippers,” then accurately quoting that website shouldn't lead to the label of “habitual falsehood-teller.”
Even after the poster is corrected through the reference to actual sites that accurately report the content of Catholic belief, if the poster continues to quote from the idiot website, he should not be labeled a “habitual falsehood-teller,” unless and until moderation here sees fit to put the website into the same pile as that where the websites of - and all references to - “the one who may not be named” has been put. (Although, honestly, there are any number of websites like this that should have already been proscribed. As well, what becomes of posts that directly or closely quote a banned website, but without attribution? Apparently, some posters lift their posts of nearly whole cloth from the website of the "one who may not be named," but merely fail to attribute their posts to this or related websites.)
I'm speaking about when a poster uses a reference, introduces the reference HIMSELF to the conversation, and says it says, “X is true,” and it turns out, when others look, that the source INTRODUCED BY THE POSTER HIMSELF clearly says “X is false.”
There are posters who do this habitually.
This creates injustice, hard feelings, and exacerbates flame wars.
One reason for this is that those posters against whom the lies are aimed come to rightly understand that the moderation really doesn't exhibit any evidence of caring whether folks lie or not. Not even the most basic, fundamental requirement of non-contradiction is honored here at FR.
Some method should be considered for mitigating the harm of this kind of poster, which harms the forum itself.
It should at least be acceptable for other posters to create a cut-and-paste record of a poster's past “affirmations of false represenations of source data,” and to follow such posters around from thread to thread, reminding folks of these failures to, ah,... “represent basic source data in an accurate way,” so that all may see that a liar is a liar.
“On the other point, the forum has a history of not tolerating Freepers making false claims about themselves, whether false military service records or false theological credentials or identities.”
Certainly, this is similar to exaggeration in one’s formal résumé. With regard to academic credentials, it's considered another species of academic dishonesty.
It's funny that we permit one form of academic fraud, but not another.
Why is that?
sitetest