Text 9399, 212 rader
Skriven 2013-07-28 13:56:43 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Social Security
=======================
Hello Dale,

On Friday July 26 2013 23:16, you wrote to me:

 DS>  MVDV> Belief is accepting things as fact without having any proof.

 DS> Believe also means to consider it likely.

In your vocabulary perhaps, not in mine.

 DS>   You are too tied up with your anti-religion notion of "believe".

Encouraged by your own comment:

 DS> Your statements sounds an awful lot like you are making a leap of
 DS> faith and believing what you want to believe without any relevant
 DS> data.  I thought that was not in your nature.

"Leap of faith" and "not in your nature" point to the religeous type of belief,
not just "consider it likeley".

 MVDV>> Unlike apparently Ward's request for a node number in Montana.

 MVDV>> I did not present is as if it were a fact. You ignore the word
 MVDV>> "apparently".

 DS> Which is to imply that you feel it is likely, i.e. you believe.

I consider it a possibility that is not te be discarded off-hand. "Likely" and
"believe" are your words, not mine.

 MVDV>> Again: I did not present is as fact. Note the word "suspicion".
 MVDV>> That means I consider it a possibility, not a proven fact.

 DS> See above.

See above.

 DS>> On the 8th, you are stating your belief that Ward's request for a
 DS>> node number in Montana was denied because of personality --
 DS>> without any evidence that is fact.

 MVDV>> No, I am not stating it as a belief. See above. The "belief
 MVDV>> part" is where  you are reading something that is not there.

 DS> If you did not consider it likely, then you were merely trying to blow
 DS> smoke.

In your perception...

 DS>> You repeat essentially the same unsupported allegation on the
 DS>> 10th, and then again on the 21st -- where you admit making a
 DS>> statement of your suspicion, aka belief.

 MVDV>> And here is where you go wrong. You equate suspicion to belief.

 DS> I equate your statement of suspicion with your belief that it is
 DS> possible or even likely.

Then you are reading something that is not there. The words "likely" and
"belief" are yours, not mine.

 DS>> In all cases you are stating what you believe or suspect to be
 DS>> the truth,

 MVDV>> There is a big difference between "believing to be true"
 MVDV>> and "suspecting to be true".

 DS> Either you believe it to be likely, or not.

Indeed. Your point?

 DS>  If not then you are merely fabricating rumors.

In your mind. I told you what raised my suspicion.

 DS>> even though no evidence for your statement has been presented.

 MVDV>> Suspicion however is driven by "indicators" and several
 MVDV>> have been presented to you:

 MVDV>> 1) Ward applied for a Z1 node number for his system in Montana.
 MVDV>> Twice.

 DS> Not a proven fact.

Are you saying that Ward is a liar?

 MVDV>> 2) Both the applications did not result in a node listing.

 DS> See above.

The nodelist is proof that no node number was issued.

 MVDV>> 3) No technical reasons were given.

 DS> Unknown.

To you maybe, not to me.

 MVDV>> 4) Someone claimed a vote was held. You said I should not
 MVDV>> believe everything Roy Witt claims and of course you are
 MVDV>> right. But oddly enough you have left it at that, you
 MVDV>> claimed Roy's claim had no credibility but you have not
 MVDV>> actually denied such a vote took place. Nor has anyone else.

 DS> How could I deny something that probably did not happen.

So you admit that it /could/ have happened.

 DS>   I stated my opinion.

Without providing any facts to support it. Was that not what you accused me of
doing when you said I was merely blowing smoke and fabricating rumours?

 MVDV>> 5) You stated that some in Z1 do not trust Ward's motives.
 MVDV>> Now why did you state that? Motives should not be a
 MVDV>> consideration when applying for a node number, so why
 MVDV>> mention it?

 DS> I stated my opinion.  My opinion has no effect on whether or not Ward
 DS> applies for a node number in Z1 nor on whether or not he is granted
 DS> one.

If it has no effect, why did you bother to mention it at all?

 MVDV>> 6) Z1C comemented on Ward's "need" for the node umber. Is
 MVDV>> he collecting them? she asked. This indicates that Z1C
 MVDV>> involved herself.

 DS> She stated an opinion, which also has no effect on the outcome.

You are naive.

 MVDV>> 7) Some claimed Ward's only reason for wanting a Z1 node
 MVDV>> number was to get access to Z1C. No one denied this was a
 MVDV>> reason for not granting the request for a node number.

 DS> No one here has denied that the moon is made of green cheese either.

No one here has claimed that the moon is made of green cheese, so there is no
reason to deny it. Contrary to the claim that some do not trust Ward's motives
and the suggestion that it affect the outcome.

 DS> Both statements are equally relevant.

No.

 MVDV>> 8) Personal reasons have been a factor in other incidents
 MVDV>> concerning Ward and  the powers that be in Z1. He was kicked
 MVDV>> out of Z1C. Not because he violated the area rules, but because
 MVDV>> of what he wrote or did elsewhere. i.e personal reasons.

 DS> Moderator's perogative.

Be that as it may be, it shows the Z1Cs bias towards Ward.

 MVDV>> 9) True, there are a number of possible reasons why a node
 MVDV>> number was denied. But oddly enough none were given. My
 MVDV>> suspicion that personal reasons were involved could very
 MVDV>> easily be eliminated if someone in the chain of command
 MVDV>> would clearly state the reasons why Ward's applications did
 MVDV>> not result in a node number.  But nothing happens. Silence
 MVDV>> everywhere. The word "Omerta" comes to mind.

 DS> Now you are really going over the deep end into conspiracy theories.

In your mind.

 MVDV>> Your attitude does not help either. You start a diversion by
 MVDV>> questioning my  alleged beliefs. But you do nothing to
 MVDV>> eliminate "personal  reasons" from the list of possible
 MVDV>> reasons.

 DS> Maybe the NC in question does not like people with grey beards?

I consider that less likely, but if that were to be the case, it would
certainly be a example of "personal reasons". I can also tell you that an NC
dismissing a request for a node number for that reason would soon be an ex-NC.

 DS>  That is just as plausible as any thing you have put forth.

No, it is not. No one has shown any hostility towards people with grey beards.
The general attitude of the Z1 powers that be toward Ward however is definitely
hostile.

 DS> You can speculate all you want.  The fact remains that *ONLY* the NC
 DS> in question can state *IF* he has denied an application for a node
 DS> number for Ward, and what the reason for doing so was.  Nothing anyone
 DS> else says has any bearing.

You are naive. In an ideal situation, the NC may act autonomously without any
peer pressure or pressure from above. But it does not work that way in Fidonet
and you know it.

 MVDV>> So my suspicion remains.

 DS> Continue believing what you wish.

Suspicion != belief.

Now, do you really believe (by your definition of believe) that instead of
producing facts, that focussing the cross hairs on me and accusing me of
blowing smoke, fabricating rumours and venting conspiracie theories is going to
convince me that my suspicions are unfounded?

Think again.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)