So, what are the rules?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, I can't re-edit what I wrote because I get a syntax error, but I swapped the clauses on my response to Ed. It should read:

Is Ed's dodge of saying I'm a stater of "mis-truths" but not calling me a liar a violation of the rules?

[packsaddle 753]

The edit feature works if you delete every apostrophe and rewrite where needed in the original post. Sometimes I notice a typo or mispelling and I just decide it's not woroth teh effrot.

[evmori 11]

I have the same trouble with the edit feature!

 

There is a BIG difference with calling someone a liar & stating someone spoke a mis-truth. A liar lies all the time where anyone can speak a mis-truth, even the most honest person.

 

There's ice cream to go with that pie!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[CA_Scouter 11]

Merlyn,

 

You come across as a hothead at times. Any criticism of your argument or your methods and you get all huffy - kinda like my teenager. He knows everything.

 

I'm not trying to supress your true statements, I'm trying to point out that you could be a bit more civil in stating them.

 

And I'd like to point out that there was some criticism of Ed earlier in this thread and he evaluated it, decided it had merit, and offered servings of 'humble' pie. A true gentleman can look at himself critically and make adjustments when needed ( or required ).

 

You, on the other hand, cannot fathom that you can do anything wrong at all. You're like the captain of the ship who is repeatedly trying to order the bogey on his radar to move out of his path because he is the navy ship 'USS Whatever'. The bogey responds, 'this is the Lighthouse, your call'.

 

Even though you don't like the BSA, its still ok to be curteous and kind.

 

 

 

 

 

[eolesen 10]

Merlyn, web forums are pretty much exempt from First Amendment protections.

 

You may have initiated a post, but you don't establish the ground rules for conduct on the forums. That inalienable right belongs to Scouter Terry and his team of admins and moderators.

 

If you don't want to respect their higher authority, that's up to you, but the fact is that it's their show, and our ability to meet here is a privilege they can limit or revoke at any time.

 

 

 

 

As for edits (which I just did...) you don't have to delete the apostrophes -- just replace each instance with two apostrophes... it's probably something really easy to fix in the underlying code, but this is a volunteer effort...(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, a liar does not lie all the time. That's a ridiculous assertion.

 

CA_Scouter, I call 'em as I see 'em. Yes, you can be hypocritical and tell me to be courteous and kind while simultaneously saying I come across as a hothead, I get all huffy, and that I cannot fathom that I could do anything wrong at all.

 

eolesen, I haven't brought the first amendment into this, and in a past thread I've pointed out that the first amendment doesn't apply to a private forum like scouter.com.

[CA_Scouter 11]

Merlyn,

 

Believe you me, I WAS being curteous and kind.

 

Some statements are both true and insulting.

 

 

You use a double standard:

 

1) when you criticize someone, you can say whatever you want, you call 'em as you see 'em

 

2) if someone criticizes you, they are hypocritical and insulting

 

Have you noticed yet again, that I've not critized you for your content, your right to your opinion, your right to post here, etc. just the method in which you do so...

 

Have you noticed yet again, that you cannot handle any sort of criticism whatssoever?

 

Let me tell ya, everyone else notices these things...

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

"...just replace each instance with two apostrophes..."

One more secret of the universe revealed. Cool!

[FScouter 24]

"Let me tell ya, everyone else notices these things... "

 

We've noticed a few pots too, calling the kettles black.

[evmori 11]

OK. Maybe stating a liar is a person who lies all the time was a bit over the top. How about this - A liar is one who is more prone to lying than telling the truth. Where someone who speaks a mis-truth could just be mistaken in the statement they made.

 

And whipped cream, too!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[PeteM 10]

...and a sweet cherry on top

[GernBlansten 10]

Ed, your humble pie offers are refreshing. However, I'd had my fill in the flag patch orientation thread.

 

A person is lying when they intend to deceive. It has nothing to do with the frequency of the act. Misstating the truth is not lying unless intent is to deceive.

 

For example, saying that Iraq had WMD when you really didn't know if they did, isn't lying, unless you knew they didn't have WMD.

[CalicoPenn 729]

There is a difference between Truth and Fact. While Fact is always Truth (in the True/False sense - A = B, B = C, therefore A = C is True AND a Fact), Truth is not always Fact - for instance, Faith is generally not based on observable Fact, yet for most people, what they take on Faith is a Truth to them. God exists is an act of Faith - but since there is no physical evidence, said statement is not an act of Fact, yet despite not being Fact, it is still. for many people a Truthful statement.

 

The Investment that Lisa mentions is a form of Faith-based Truth, though not in the religious sense - Faith is not always about religion. For example, I have Faith that my car will start in the morning - but there is no Factual basis for that belief, merely past experience that my car has started every morning without problem for the past two years. The fact is that my car may or may not start, and I won't know until I try to start it. If my car starts in the morning, my Faith has becme Fact (for that one instance) but the next time I try to start the car, the earlier fact becomes a building block of my faith that the car will start again. Investment is a Faith that this happened or didn't happen or will happen or always happens or never happens - even if the facts don't support it.

 

In this day of the Internet, it's remarkably easy for most of us to investigate statements of Truth to see if they are based on Fact or Opinion (Faith). It should be sufficient, if someone were to post that Eagles are Ducks for a counter poster to say that such a statement is incorrect and perhaps post a link and/or synopsis (enough to be able to find a source) to show it being incorrect. The next time the person states an Eagle is a Duck, we can collectively roll our eyes and move on - rather than try, over multiple posts, to point out to the person that s/he is wrong.

 

At some point, the multiple posting about that person being wrong makes people tune out every other message one is trying to make. Post the factual link and leave it at that - its counter-productive to scream and holler at each other while the rest of us look on, and its really annoying to have someone (virtually) jumping up and down pointing out that the other person can't accept facts.

 

As my old pappy used to tell me (and this is directed at no one in particular - because we're all guilty of this at one point or another - maybe on the forum, maybe at work, maybe in line at the store, or maybe somewhere else - so please do not take personal offense):

 

"The more frustrated you get wrestling a Pig, the more likely it is that the Pig is enjoying it"

 

Calico

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

CA_Scouter writes:

Believe you me, I WAS being curteous and kind.

 

I don't think you were. However, this is a matter of opinion.

 

You use a double standard:

 

1) when you criticize someone, you can say whatever you want, you call 'em as you see 'em

 

2) if someone criticizes you, they are hypocritical and insulting

 

I don't use a double standard; we disagree on what is and isn't insulting and what is and isn't hypocritical.

 

[CA_Scouter 11]

FScouter: Ouch. I disagree, but I'll respect your opinion and admit that I'm a bit biased in my favor. I'll stop now.

 

Now Merlyn, I can agree with your last statement.

 

G'nite