Text 3475, 94 rader
Skriven 2007-02-18 18:17:00 av Bob Klahn
     Kommentar till en text av John Massey
Ärende: It's gettin deep.
=========================
 ...

 bk>>  And your diversion here shows it. This has nothing to do with
 bk>>  Bush dodging the draft.

 JM> No Bob it has to do with what you will call reasonable
 JM> conclusions and the length you will go to deny what others
 JM> call reasonable conclusions.

 I don't have to go to lengths. Your reasonable conclusion is
 your opinion. To state something as a certain fact you have to
 back it up.

 JM>>> claims to have witnessed a jet plane crash at a specific
 JM>>> AFB, during a specified time period, when no record or any
 JM>>> other witnesses of any such crash can be found, the
 JM>>> reasonable conclusion  is the person is lying about that
 JM>>> sighting.

 bk>>  If that person ever made the claims you say he did. If you show
 bk>>  evidence of any of it.

 JM> The person made the claim, admitted he made the claim, and
 JM> the whole thing was posted in one of the echos. I don't
 JM> remember which one.

 Your point? When did the accusers post their proof? They didn't
 when asked. As I said then, not in these exact words, I will not
 give the flamer one inch. If they had proof, they should have
 presented it. Their intention was not to promote truth, but
 purely to flame.

 bk>>  Until you do, it's irrelevant.

 JM> I can see why you would think so.

 So, you now say evidence is not necessary? You now say we should
 all accept accusations without evidence? No thanks. That's not
 how it works, not for honest people.

 JM>>> You have not done that.

 bk>>   Those who accused never showed evidence for their accusations.

 JM> Yes they have.

 Not when I asked for it. If they did they did not point to it
 when I asked for the evidence. If they have the evidence why
 couldn't they just post it when asked?

 bk>>   If they didn't show evidence,

 JM> They did show the evidence, you just claim not to have seen
 JM> it.

 If I claim not to have seen it, then I didn't see it. Would it
 kill them to repost it? Well, is there a downside to that? Just
 post it again.

 bk>>   I have no obligation to even consider the accusations.

 JM> True

 Then the issue is settled.

 bk>>   Knowing the predisposition of the
 bk>>   right to trash the target of their ire with falsehoods,

 JM> Just exactly the same way the left does.

 No, the "left" doesn't even come close to playing that game. The
 right is truly professional in smearing their opponents.

 bk>>   why would I even consider any unsubstantiated accusations?

 JM> The accusations in my example are not unsubstantiated, no
 JM> matter how much you deny it.

 Then show the substantiation that was supposedly offered. If it
 is in my archives I can't find it without something to search
 for. Just give me some unique text, or even seldom encountered.
 If I have it then it will turn up.

 Otherwise, I can search in online sources. What I won't do is
 accept accusations against a poster without some evidentiary
 basis.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... It would be better for mankind... that the rich be tossed into the sea. A.C
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)