[sitetest]

Dear Religion Moderator,

I understand what you're saying. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that you should ban the phrase “bearing false witness” when applied to posters. I'm all in favor of calling liars liars.

It's just that “bearing false witness” so clearly means at least “lying” that if the rules are to be consistent, it seems to me that you will need to ban the phrase.

sitetest

[Religion Moderator]

I'm struggling over nuances, pro and con.

If a person testifies that he saw water in the desert, his testimony may be false (a mirage) but also not a lie, he did not intend to deceive.

Or more to the point around here:

Poster A: Catholics worship Mary.

Poster B: That's a lie.

Technically, that would not be making it personal because the "that" applies to the statement not Poster A. On the other hand,

Poster A: I believe Catholics worship Mary.

Poster B: That's a lie.

would obviously be making it personal because Poster B cannot read Poster A's mind. Worse, it can be argued that the phrase "I believe" should go without saying in the former exchange.

It's a moderating nightmare because nuancing would allow that a post cannot be judged on its own merit, i.e. "That's a lie."

It is much more direct to simply disallow (or allow) the word "lie" and the phrase "bearing false witness" to be applied to another Freeper altogether.

Then again, under the nuancing, the magic phrase "I believe" innoculates anything else the poster says. For instance,

I believe that you don't have a clue.

is not making it personal because the poster is expressing his own mind whereas

You don't have a clue.

is making it personal by mind reading.

On the plus side of nuancing, the phrase "I believe" takes a lot of the heat out of the exchange.

If a poster says "I believe God is a rubber duck" then there is little cause for offense - humor, yes but offense, no.