I have admitted mistakes before, what you are saying is simply untrue.
I'm sure you have at times. It doesn't change the fact that you've been caught lying plenty of times, and you only chose to double down.
I never claimed to have written that RFC. I claimed I was active in the internet when netiquette was still new and being figured out and I was part of that discussion.
This is incorrect. What you said was:
Yeah, and I was there helping write it long before you ever touched a keyboard.
When I challenged you to prove it, you immediately backpedalled, claiming that you will not share your personal information with tHe CrAzIeS, despite having previously shared your personal information (possibly unwittingly).
You were given chances to admit your mistake time and time again (including just now). You are actively choosing not to do so. You are, therefore, a liar.
I never claimed to have been involved in writing the RFC.
See above. You were "there helping write it long before I ever touched a keyboard". Again, you had countless opportunities to withdraw that claim. You didn't, because you're a liar.
Functionally identical to a liar? Seriously? Tom didn't say I was functionally identical to a liar, he said I was a liar.
I happen to agree with him, and if you were functionally identical to one (while through some astronomical coincidence just constantly speaking untruths unintentionally), I'd still call you one for brevity.
Making mistakes and saying untrue things due to ignorance on the subject does not meet the definition of a liar.
Indeed. This is where your repeated claims of being a subject matter expert on whichever subject is being discussed at the time rule out the possibility of ignorance in your case.
This is not the first time he has called me a liar, not even recently.
Well, yes. You are a liar. It's about as simple a statement as pointing out the colour of your hair or eyes. If you'd like to not be called a liar, stop lying all the time.
So it's ok for me to call him a liar if I think he's lying? Officially sanctioned?
Once again: I made the distinction abundantly clear. You know it didn't mean what you want it to mean.
Please quote me where I called Tom a liar in that thread.
In what thread? I didn't refer to any thread. You called Tom out on his lies before, and no action was taken against you. Do you disagree? [Note: the question regards plainly verifiable facts, and you have access to all the information. If you choose not to represent the truth of the matter, it will be difficult not to conclude that you chose to lie.]
Because I am not calling him a liar, and he is calling me one? That's not a legitimite reason?
So, it appears that you really dislike the word "liar", regardless of the semantics behind that word, and the similarities to the statements you've made about Tom's positions.
How unfortunate for you, I guess?
What long list? A fairly long list of things you claim are lies? You claiming them to be lies doesn't make it so.
I agree - my claims have nothing to do with it. The abundance of evidence against you is the significant factor. You can start by revoking, loudly and publicly, your claim that you were helping write RFCs before I had ever touched a keyboard, since that claim was a lie. We'll work our way up from there.
See, if this is an example of your 'long list of lies' I have serious problems with it.
Of course you do. If you were ready to acknowledge your mistakes, you wouldn't have the reputation of a compulsive liar.
I never said I was an authority on gravitational simulations. Quote me saying this.
k
I write computer simulations, so I can say with certainty that this statement is incorrect.
As it turns out, your simulations are rather basic (you would barely pass freshman year), and you very quickly backed off on the level of certainty you could make your assessments with. This is why you quickly shifted to "it's completely pointless to even try and guess what their capabilities are." You had the opportunity to admit your mistake and withdraw your claim, but you instead chose to ignore your untruths, and cemented them as a (you guessed it!) lie.
Come on, that's weak and you know it. He's literally challenging my 'claim' of posting a picture that I took.
I'd like to think that I was abundantly clear in stating again and again that I have no problems with you telling Tom that he's wrong. I don't understand why you want me to say it again, but I just did for your convenience.
Again, I never claimed to be an RFC author. You keep saying that, but I never said it. You jumped to a conclusion.
Well, you did. You claimed that you helped to write it. You
still have the opportunity to retract it, but every time you repeat this lie it makes me less likely to look at you favourably. It will take quite a while to rebuild your reputation around here, because you just keep on doubling down on your gosh darn lies.
I also don't recall confirming my real name, I have no idea if you have it or not.
You e-mailed me with your full name in view several times. Of course, it's possible that that name was an alias, but a cursory glance suggests otherwise.
You could still claim I photoshopped them. It still wouldn't be proof.
Probably, I could. It just so happens that I wouldn't, because, unlike
some people I don't compulsively lie.
And what kind of credentials are you expecting me to provide anyway? I'm not claiming to be a professor or anything other than having skills which are not uncommon.
Well, you claimed to be a competent programmer who writes gravitational simulations. The quality of your code was severely at odds with these claims, so if we're judging your position by merit alone, it appears to be an untruth. However, it's still possible that you write such simulations for a living, and as a product of your age you just don't need to be competent with them. So, it's still possible that you're not lying, you might just be a boomer. I guess you could present some evidence of your employment to support thar position?
Sorry, I'm not handing out my name to a group of people
Again, I already have your name, because you already gave it to me. Your name is not helping your case.
I never claimed I was an RFC author.
Incorrect:
Yeah, and I was there helping write it long before you ever touched a keyboard.I never claimed I was a computational physicist.
Incorrect:
I write computer simulations, so I can say with certainty that this statement is incorrect.I'm baffled at this comment. I was asking if Tom calling me a liar here was allowed, and if I can do the same when I decide he is lying.
Well, it won't be you deciding whether what you're telling is the truth.
And yes, being called a liar is a personal attack.
When it's supported by quite as much evidence as your case, it is not a personal attack. Calling someone disfigured can be an attack, but if they happen to be a victim of an acid attack, it becomes a simple statement of fact. In your case, you've been snorkelling in acid for a few weeks straight, purely by your own choice, and it's not looking pretty. You'll be known as a liar until you've stopped lying, and then probably for some time after that whilst the community adjusts to your change of heart.
How do you get "You claimed that you helped write the RFCs defining netiquette," and a double-down from:
Hah, no I didn't write that RFC. It might surprise you that the word nettiquite was around and commonly used for over a decade before that RFC was written and there was plenty of discussions and arguments about what was proper and what was not long before that RFC came into being.
Yes, after he's been called out on his lie 3 times in a row, he tried pretending that he had never made the claim in the first place. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the two lies did not cancel each other out, they just became worse together. Conveniently, his story changed after I dropped the other shoe and pointed out how easy it is to verify his lie. What JSS
should do, in order to fit the narrative he's trying to spin here (
When I mess up, I admit it and apologise!) is to admit that he was mistaken about his role in writing the RFCs, and apologise for his confusion about his own past.