Re: visi.com - NM - lies - slander

[toddpw@ugcs.caltech.edu (Todd P. Whitesel)]

pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert) writes:

>Considering the length of time he's been using the visi account to post
>slanderous material (and I'll point out once again, that 1) slander is
>illegal, 2) Nathan knows it's illegal, 3) he doesn't give a shit) without

Translation:

    1) various people think that what Nathan says is slander
    2) nathan knows that court-proven slander is indeed illegal
    3) nathan doesn't give a shit, because he knows that he could defend
	himself against the slander charge, and that various people have
	given him flak about slander for years but never managed to sue

>you, as the system admin doing anything about it, would make even the
>greenest newbie suspect that there's some sort of "back-scraching" between
>you two, or at least an agreement to turn the blind eye.

Feel free to think that if it makes you happy.

What most of the Anti-Nathan people (and even Nathan himself) need to
realize is that when somebody else's "facts" disagree with your facts,
OF COURSE both of you think the other is a liar and a slanderer.

Both.

I don't care how much time you have spent proving your case to yourself.
I don't care how many times the "other guy" has misread what you said.
I don't even care how many external sources you've personally verified.
The guy you're arguing with believes he has done the same.

But how can you still disagree then?

SHIT HAPPENS.

There's a reason stuffy academic people list tons of sources in their
writing, so that practically everything they say is taken from someone
else's work. It's so you can go chase down the things you think are
bogus and cross-examine them directly.

The reason people here keep getting into arguments is that they let too
much of their viewpoints depend on "facts" that they can't prove. Things
are always sketchy when the only available record is personal anecdote.
But you _have_ to chase things down, or at least qualify them based on
whether there exists a motive for distortion. Otherwise disagreements
will never be resolved, and local wars will continue indefinitely.

Todd Whitesel
toddpw @ ugcs.caltech.edu