Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Personal attack?
« on: January 31, 2021, 10:49:28 AM »
In this thread in FE Investigations - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17660.60

...Tom says of JSS:

Quote
You've come here to lie before. You had previously claimed that you were a computer programmer who has programmed gravity simulations and knew that Numerical Solutions accurately simulated gravity. You lied to us

The forum rules say:

Quote
1. No personal attacks

Keep your posts civil and to the point, and don't insult others. If you have run out of valid contributions, simply do not post. The exception to this rule is in Complete Nonsense and Angry Ranting, where personal attacks are par for the course. If you do not like this, then don't post in those fora.

Anyone seen personally attacking another member will be immediately warned. After two warnings, a ban with length determined by moderator discretion will be issued.

Can you confirm whether this is acceptable or not? It looks very much like a personal attack. I don't see much FE debate in there, just ad hominem accusations of lying.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8253
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2021, 04:27:43 PM »
If someone comes here and lies why can't we say that they are lying?

"Stop posting liar" = insult

"You lied about x because of xyz" = description, concern

Quote
I don't see much FE debate in there, just ad hominem accusations of lying.

There is FE debate there. Please quote me in full. I did provide further information and a link for FE debate.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Quote from: JSS
Like I'd lie about something anyone can verify themselves.

You've come here to lie before. You had previously claimed that you were a computer programmer who has programmed gravity simulations and knew that Numerical Solutions accurately simulated gravity. You lied to us - https://wiki.tfes.org/Numerical_Solutions

Now in this thread you're an astrophotographer claiming to have special knowledge.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 04:34:38 PM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12621
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2021, 04:35:39 PM »
I'm inclined to side with Tom, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise.

JSS has a track record of lying about a great many things on this forum, and stating it as a matter of fact is not an insult in and of itself. If he didn't want that reputation, he could have acted (or, indeed, chosen inaction) to prevent it.

If Tom were to make this statement unprovoked, or if he was following him around calling him a liar in every thread/starting endless threads about how much of a liar he is (as others have done to him), then it would clearly not be OK; but this appears to be a response to an argument from incredulity - "Like I'd lie about <XYZ>" is not a strong argument coming from a person who's been caught lying so many times before (Source: Dude, trust me!).

Does it mean he's lying again? Not necessarily. Is it a particularly strong counter-argument? No. Is it an insult to point out someone's well-documented past? Not by default, at least.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 04:45:41 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Offline SteelyBob

  • *
  • Posts: 179
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2021, 05:04:46 PM »
Thanks for your replies.

I'd inferred from the rules that ad hom debate wasn't welcome in the upper, regardless of the validity of the attack. ie it doesn't matter whether JSS has lied in the past, as it has no bearing on whether or not his current position is valid. We're here to argue the point, not whether people are dishonest. If you're saying ad hom is fair game, then that's worth knowing for future reference.

I'd also say that I see no evidence whatsoever of JSS being dishonest in this thread - you clearly have deeper knowledge - and Tom hasn't supplied any evidence to support his assertion. Indeed it looks at first glance like his link is supposed to do just that, but it's just a link to the wiki - it proves nothing about JSS's honesty. I'd also disagree that he was arguing from incredulity - his point was that the claim he is making is easily verified, so to lie about such a thing would be self-defeating, and this was in response to be called 'an internet rando' by Tom, which again, does look an awful lot like a personal attack.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12621
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2021, 06:04:09 PM »
If you're saying ad hom is fair game, then that's worth knowing for future reference.
I'm not, and I hope I delineated the differentiating factors clearly enough. I appreciate you might personally disagree, but this is nonetheless the line we'll likely take in the future.

If the issue isn't one of disagreement, but one of clarity, please let me know what how I can make it clearer.

his point was that the claim he is making is easily verified, so to lie about such a thing would be self-defeating
You'd be surprised how often people here hope to get away with self-defeating rhetoric. This is especially common for Americans, who mistake confidence for correctness.

this was in response to be called 'an internet rando' by Tom, which again, does look an awful lot like a personal attack.
It's not a personal attack at all. We're all Internet randos here until proven otherwise. If I claim to be an educator and make authoritative statements about educational theory, you should doubt my authority to make these claims unless I provided some substantiation (either a way to re-trace my logic, or at least a way to verify of my supposed authority). If I subsequently also claim to be a chef, an astrophysicist, a videographer/photographer a forensic scientist and an IT technician, your doubt should naturally increase.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 06:08:38 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2021, 06:38:42 PM »
@steelybob

I also think that ad-hom is across purposes to communication of any kind.

In this case, unless this was a discussion hinging on JSS's veracity in some way - in which case this would be a valid raised example demonstrating the lack thereof (potentially, at least in that one instance) - it probably shouldn't have been included. 

As all communication depends on the earnest/good faith of all participants to even have the slim CHANCE at being effective - one may argue that examples of disearnesty and dishonesty are relevant.  In this example I think it was more just frustration with jss (which can be expected due to their approach and tactics/conversational habits)
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 06:40:33 PM by jack44556677 »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8253
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2021, 07:47:07 PM »
it doesn't matter whether JSS has lied in the past, as it has no bearing on whether or not his current position is valid.

How is it that if someone has made lies in the past to try to win their arguments that it has no bearing on future claims from that person?
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2021, 07:54:01 PM »
it doesn't matter whether JSS has lied in the past, as it has no bearing on whether or not his current position is valid.

How is it that if someone has made lies in the past to try to win their arguments that it has no bearing on future claims from that person?

Then I suppose that would apply to the entirety of your future claims.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1235
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2021, 07:58:09 PM »
First off, yes I am argumentative, often an asshole, rude and I badger people about things I want answers from. I understand WHY Tom is attacking, but expect him to have to abide by the same rules I do. Come down to AR to yell at and insult me.

Now, I have been accused of lying, which is vastly different than saying I am mistaken or wrong. Accusing me of lying implied intent.  I'm sure Tom may feel that way, but his feelings are not facts.

Let's break down Tom's accusations.

1. You've come here to lie before.

This is purely a personal attack, I have not come here to lie, ever. Tom, and Pete who has also accused me of being a liar have no knowledge of my thoughts. I personally think Tom has lied on this site... so am I allowed to accuse him in every thread I respond to from now on? We all know the answer is no, so why is it being allowed in Tom's case?

I strongly reject any claims I have lied here before. I've made mistakes before, and admitted them. That isn't lying.

2. You had previously claimed that you were a computer programmer who has programmed gravity simulations and knew that Numerical Solutions accurately simulated gravity. You lied to us

Yes, I claimed to know how to program computers, this is not an exceptional or unusual claim. I've also proved this by writing a computer program. So this is a definite case of Tom... being mistaken. I did not lie.

I said I programmed n-body simulations before. I offered to prove it by writing one in any language Tom chose, but Tom declined to take me up on that offer. It's also not an extraordinary claim, any anyone with a small amount of coding experience could write one. I did not lie.

Numerical solutions to algebraic equations are used in tens of thousands of applications all over the world, every day. It's one of the most common methods for solving complex equations and there is nothing wrong with using them.  It's just math, nothing controversial. It would be like calling me a liar because I claimed to have added some numbers together. It's a nonsense claim. I did not lie.

So how am I lying here?

If Tom doesn't believe gravity exists, someone else saying it does and why they think that is not lying. It's disagreeing.

3. Now in this thread you're an astrophotographer claiming to have special knowledge.

I never used that term in that thread, but even if I did, it's true. I take pictures of stars, planets, the sun. That's astrophotography. If I called myself a photographer would I still be called a liar? I've posted many, many images I took specifically for this board. Is Tom claiming they are all faked? I have provided a large amount of photographs, calculations, drawings, diagrams and simulations in my time here. I'd put my track record up against anyone to the amount and quality of information I've posted.

Once more, this is a completely baseless attack.

And what 'special knowledge' exactly is he referring to?  I claimed to have specific knowledge about the pictures I took, which again is true. I took them, I know which way the camera was pointed and what buttons I pressed. Does Tom think I don't know any of this?

I don't see any proof, or even the remotest shred of evidence of the lies I'm being accused of.

I've seen many claims here of people doing research who won't back up their claims with evidence, or results. Can I start calling them liars? Can I call anyone here a liar that doesn't 'prove' to me literally any statement they make?

Pete, I think your demands for proof are unreasonable. How exactly do I prove anything to you, being just an internet weirdo? There is nothing, nothing at all I could say that couldn't just be called lies. If I claimed to have driven to McDonalds today, would I get called a liar and told to stop claiming special knowledge? How would I prove I owned a car, or knew how to operate it? What proof could I possibly give that couldn't be dismissed as fake or lies?

If this is the standard, then how can we have any discussions at all? 

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12621
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2021, 09:57:44 PM »
[I] expect him to have to abide by the same rules I do. Come down to AR to yell at and insult me.
You are correct in your assumption.

Now, I have been accused of lying, which is vastly different than saying I am mistaken or wrong. Accusing me of lying implied intent.
Not necessarily. Your initial intent may have been different, but your inability to back down when you're proven wrong does make you a liar.

An example:
-You claimed that you helped write the RFCs defining netiquette.
-I pointed out, knowing your name, that you do not appear as the author of any of the RFCs.
-Your response was not to withdraw your claim, but rather to double down on it.
-You therefore eliminated any room for misunderstanding, and cemented yourself as a liar.

Of course, it is possible that you simply said things you didn't mean in the spur of the moment. Time and time again, you were given opportunities to withdraw your claim. At any point in time, you could have explained that you didn't actually mean what you ended up saying, and it would have been fine. But time and time again you confirmed your stance, one which is at odds with history. That makes you a liar, purely by choice.

Tom, and Pete who has also accused me of being a liar have no knowledge of my thoughts.
Your thoughts are irrelevant. Your words are key. If you reliably and repeatedly happen to unintentionally say things that just happen to be demonstrably untrue, in an attempt to advance your arguments, then you are functionally identical to a liar, even if your feelings may be different.

I personally think Tom has lied on this site... so am I allowed to accuse him in every thread I respond to from now on? We all know the answer is no, so why is it being allowed in Tom's case?
I refer you to the following:

If Tom were to make this statement unprovoked, or if he was following him around calling him a liar in every thread/starting endless threads about how much of a liar he is (as others have done to him), then it would clearly not be OK; but this appears to be a response to an argument from incredulity - "Like I'd lie about <XYZ>" is not a strong argument coming from a person who's been caught lying so many times before (Source: Dude, trust me!).

You caught Tom lying time and time again about subjects surrounding the 2020 US presidential election. You also felt no particular restraint in repeatedly calling him out on it (same as many others). You will note that we didn't take any issue with that. To summarise: your claim that Tom is being treated differently from you is false. Given that this is all information you already had available to you and you neglected to disclose, it seems reasonable that, once again, you chose to lie.

As with previous cases, you still have the opportunity to simply admit a mistake and dispel any doubts about your sincerity. Then again, I strongly doubt you will. I predict that you will come up with vErY lEgItImAtE reasons for why you calling Tom out is different from him calling you out. I'm excited to be proven wrong.

I strongly reject any claims I have lied here before. I've made mistakes before, and admitted them. That isn't lying.
I agree. If you go through the many mistakes you've made in the past and admit them, I will object to anyone calling them lies. You'll just have to work through a fairly long list of untruths you currently stalwartly stand by.

Yes, I claimed to know how to program computers, this is not an exceptional or unusual claim.
This is another lie of yours. You are retconning your claims to state something as simple as "I've programmed computers before" (something I have no qualms with - you illustrated that you know at least basic C, even if your syntax is rusty). However, you also claimed that you are an authority of gravitational simulations, to an extent that allows you to determine the most efficient algorithm for the job. This is conclusively incorrect, and even a cursory evaluation of your code shows that you never had to worry about computational complexity. That's fine, most programmers don't - it just doesn't make you the expert you falsely claimed to be. You had the choice of not making this false claim.

Once more, this is a completely baseless attack.
Calling your ability into question is not a personal attack, especially when you reflect on your ability as poorly as I outlined above. It's a simple statement of observable fact. You are not competent in the areas you repeatedly assert yourself to be a subject matter expert in.

Pete, I think your demands for proof are unreasonable. How exactly do I prove anything to you, being just an internet weirdo?
Again, the RFC lie is a very easy one. You claimed to have helped to write them. You provided me with your real name (possibly unwittingly). You do not appear as an author of any RFC in IETF's history. You also confirmed that the name I have for you is correct. This leaves only one possible conclusion - you lied about being a co-author of any RFCs on netiquette.

There is nothing, nothing at all I could say that couldn't just be called lies.
I disagree. If you provide me with credible evidence of your credentials, I will personally confirm it here and vouch for it with my name without compromising your privacy. I am also happy to nominate a few RE'ers to perform a similar role if you prefer - people I trust, whom you shouldn't have much trouble communicating with.

How would I prove I owned a car, or knew how to operate it?
I'll take a photograph of your driver's license as proof for the latter. I'm a little too far left-leaning to care about what you do or do not own tbh.

If this is the standard, then how can we have any discussions at all?
That's rather simple - if you don't want to prove yourself to be a subject matter expert, you can accept your position as an Internet rando (much like the vast majority of people here), and have your claims rely entirely on their own merit. Either your arguments are convincing, or they are not. If you want to assert your authority as an IETF RFC author/astrophotographer/astrophysicist/computational physicist, you'll have to provide evidence of those credentials.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 10:11:25 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1235
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2021, 10:05:00 PM »
I said I programmed n-body simulations before. I offered to prove it by writing one in any language Tom chose, but Tom declined to take me up on that offer.

This is just more evidence of someone fibbing in my book. In the Suggestions Thread you're offing to write a N-Body Gravity Simulation in any language, implying that you are proficient in all computer languages.  ::)

This is another example of Tom accusing me lying because he doesn't understand the subject.

I never once claimed I was 'proficient in all computer languages'.  That is Tom making assumptions about a subject he seems to not know much about. What I implied was that I could learn any language quick enough to write a simple program in it. I was offering a demonstration to prove it, as an n-body simulator isn't very complex.

Again, this isn't me claiming to have been to the moon. Anyone who has experience in programming can do the same, people pick up new languages and coding systems all the time. It's literally part of my current job to be able to work in anything required, it's assumed any programmer can learn a new language.

Tom simply doesn't understand I was claiming to be able to do what nearly anyone with experience in programming can do.

Is this allowed then? To jump straight to accusing people of lying when they claim to be able to do something not particularly difficult? I can do the same thing?


*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12621
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #11 on: January 31, 2021, 10:13:33 PM »
Tom simply doesn't understand I was claiming to be able to do what nearly anyone with experience in programming can do.

Is this allowed then? To jump straight to accusing people of lying when they claim to be able to do something not particularly difficult? I can do the same thing?
I don't see any reason for you not to point out what you just did - that any programmer could write such a simulation in any language, maybe with a little bit of help from Google/StackOverflow. Tom is clearly wrong, and pointing out that he's wrong is not a personal attack. Was any moderation action taken against you for pointing this out? Looking at the logs, the answer appears to be a resounding "no".

It baffles me that this needs explaining. Do Americans really struggle this much to tell the difference between being told they're wrong and being personally attacked?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 10:15:45 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 8253
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #12 on: January 31, 2021, 10:33:51 PM »
I said I programmed n-body simulations before. I offered to prove it by writing one in any language Tom chose, but Tom declined to take me up on that offer.

This is just more evidence of someone fibbing in my book. In the Suggestions Thread you're offing to write a N-Body Gravity Simulation in any language, implying that you are proficient in all computer languages.  ::)

This is another example of Tom accusing me lying because he doesn't understand the subject.

I never once claimed I was 'proficient in all computer languages'.  That is Tom making assumptions about a subject he seems to not know much about. What I implied was that I could learn any language quick enough to write a simple program in it. I was offering a demonstration to prove it, as an n-body simulator isn't very complex.

I didn't say it was a lie. I said that I considered it further evidence of someone fibbing. Why claim that you could do it in any language and then later claim that you would need to learn the language first? If you have to learn it, then you can't do it.

"I'm a great linguist! Tell me something and I'll translate it for you in any language of your choosing!" "Okay, wait... I need to learn that language first... But I'm an expert linguist. And once you know one language it's easier to learn others..."

Stop claiming that you're an expert who has special knowledge which wins your arguments if you don't want to be called on your claims.
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1235
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #13 on: January 31, 2021, 10:40:52 PM »
Now, I have been accused of lying, which is vastly different than saying I am mistaken or wrong. Accusing me of lying implied intent.
Not necessarily. Your initial intent may have been different, but your inability to back down when you're proven wrong does make you a liar.

I have admitted mistakes before, what you are saying is simply untrue.

An example:
-You claimed that you helped write the RFCs defining netiquette.
-I pointed out, knowing your name, that you do not appear as the author of any of the RFCs.
-Your response was not to withdraw your claim, but rather to double down on it.
-You therefore eliminated any room for misunderstanding, and cemented yourself as a liar.

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.  You were the one who jumped to the conclusion I was talking about the official RFC.  The term netiquette was around before that RFC, and I certainly was as vocal back then about my opinions as I am now.  I was very much involved in the discussions.

So I dispute the claim that I lied.  I never claimed to have been involved in writing the RFC.

Tom, and Pete who has also accused me of being a liar have no knowledge of my thoughts.
Your thoughts are irrelevant. Your words are key. If you reliably and repeatedly happen to unintentionally say things that just happen to be demonstrably untrue, in an attempt to advance your arguments, then you are functionally identical to a liar, even if your feelings may be different.

Functionally identical to a liar?  Seriously?  Tom didn't say I was functionally identical to a liar, he said I was a liar.

Making mistakes and saying untrue things due to ignorance on the subject does not meet the definition of a liar.

The difference between a lie and a mistake is entirely about feelings and intent. We all know what a liar is, we all know the difference between saying someone said something untrue, and someone lied.

I personally think Tom has lied on this site... so am I allowed to accuse him in every thread I respond to from now on? We all know the answer is no, so why is it being allowed in Tom's case?
I refer you to the following:

If Tom were to make this statement unprovoked, or if he was following him around calling him a liar in every thread/starting endless threads about how much of a liar he is (as others have done to him), then it would clearly not be OK; but this appears to be a response to an argument from incredulity - "Like I'd lie about <XYZ>" is not a strong argument coming from a person who's been caught lying so many times before (Source: Dude, trust me!).

This is not the first time he has called me a liar, not even recently.  It's a pattern of behavior.  If it was just one time I'd let it slide, and in fact I did, I am only responding in this thread because I'm being accused of lying, yet again.  How many times does he have to call me a liar for it to matter?

So it's ok for me to call him a liar if I think he's lying?  Officially sanctioned?

You caught Tom lying time and time again about subjects surrounding the 2020 US presidential election. You also felt no particular restraint in repeatedly calling him out on it (same as many others). You will note that we didn't take any issue with that. To summarise: your claim that Tom is being treated differently from you is false. Given that this is all information you already had available to you and you neglected to disclose, it seems reasonable that, once again, you chose to lie.

Please quote me where I called Tom a liar in that thread.

As with previous cases, you still have the opportunity to simply admit a mistake and dispel any doubts about your sincerity. Then again, I strongly doubt you will. I predict that you will come up with vErY lEgItImAtE reasons for why you calling Tom out is different from him calling you out. I'm excited to be proven wrong.

Because I am not calling him a liar, and he is calling me one?  That's not a legitimite reason?

I strongly reject any claims I have lied here before. I've made mistakes before, and admitted them. That isn't lying.
I agree. If you go through the many mistakes you've made in the past and admit them, I will object to anyone calling them lies. You'll just have to work through a fairly long list of untruths you currently stalwartly stand by.

What long list?  A fairly long list of things you claim are lies?  You claiming them to be lies doesn't make it so.  How many lies is in this list, can you give me a number?  If you are going to accuse me of a long list, please have your references ready.

Yes, I claimed to know how to program computers, this is not an exceptional or unusual claim.
This is another lie of yours. You are retconning your claims to state something as simple as "I've programmed computers before" (something I have no qualms with - you illustrated that you know at least basic C, even if your syntax is rusty). However, you also claimed that you are an authority of gravitational simulations, to an extent that allows you to determine the most efficient algorithm for the job. This is conclusively incorrect, and even a cursory evaluation of your code shows that you never had to worry about computational complexity. That's fine, most programmers don't - it just doesn't make you the expert you falsely claimed to be. You had the choice of not making this false claim.

See, if this is an example of your 'long list of lies' I have serious problems with it.

I never said I was an authority on gravitational simulations.  Quote me saying this.  I said I've written n-body simulations before, that makes me knowledgeable in how they work.  I'm not an authority, I am not a professor in astrophysics and never claimed to be.

The code I wrote was to demonstrate a SIMPLE example of how moving one group of objects instead of another group takes the same amount of work.

You misrepresenting, or not understanding my point doesn't make me a liar. 

Once more, this is a completely baseless attack.
Calling your ability into question is not a personal attack, especially when you reflect on your ability as poorly as I outlined above. It's a simple statement of observable fact. You are not competent in the areas you repeatedly assert yourself to be a subject matter expert in.

You deleted the quote this was referring to, let me put it back: Now in this thread you're an astrophotographer claiming to have special knowledge.

What in that sentence is calling my ability into question?  I take pictures of stars, that makes me an astrophotographer the same way taking pictures makes me a photographer. Tom is the one who keeps using the term 'specal knowledge' in this case, my claim that I know what the settings of my own camera are when I take pictures.

Where in this sentence of Tom's is he challenging my competence in?  The ability to take a picture?  The ability to know what the settings were?

Come on, that's weak and you know it.  He's literally challenging my 'claim' of posting a picture that I took. 

Pete, I think your demands for proof are unreasonable. How exactly do I prove anything to you, being just an internet weirdo?
Again, the RFC lie is a very easy one. You claimed to have helped to write them. You provided me with your real name (possibly unwittingly). You do not appear as an author of any RFC in IETF's history. You also confirmed that the name I have for you is correct. This leaves only one possible conclusion - you lied about being a co-author of any RFCs on netiquette.

Again, I never claimed to be an RFC author. You keep saying that, but I never said it. You jumped to a conclusion.

I also don't recall confirming my real name, I have no idea if you have it or not.

There is nothing, nothing at all I could say that couldn't just be called lies.
I disagree. If you provide me with credible evidence of your credentials, I will personally confirm it here and vouch for it with my name without compromising your privacy. I am also happen to nominate a few RE'ers to perform a similar role if you prefer - people I trust, whom you shouldn't have much trouble communicating with.

You could still claim I photoshopped them. It still wouldn't be proof. 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.

Sorry, I'm not handing out my name to a group of people who have collectively threatened me with death on more than one occasion, and several which are seriously unhinged, and one who just recently wanted to send me a box of poop. :)

You're crazy if you think this is somewhere I want to use my name.

How would I prove I owned a car, or knew how to operate it?
I'll take a photograph of your driver's license as proof for the latter.

If this is the standard, then how can we have any discussions at all?
That's rather simple - if you don't want to prove yourself to be a subject matter expert, you can accept your position as an Internet rando (much like the vast majority of the people here), and have your claims rely entirely on their own merit. Either your arguments are convincing, or they are not. If you want to assert your authority as an IETF RFC author/astrophotographer/astrophysicist/computational physicist, you'll have to provide evidence of those credentials.

Now you are the one making things up.  I never said made of the following claims.

I never claimed I was an RFC author.

I never claimed I was an astrophysicist.

I never claimed I was a computational physicist.

I don't recall ever calling myself an astrophotographer, that's a word Tom brought up.  But it hardly matters as it's true. I've shown enough of my own pictures to prove I have taken them.

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1235
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #14 on: January 31, 2021, 10:52:33 PM »
I said I programmed n-body simulations before. I offered to prove it by writing one in any language Tom chose, but Tom declined to take me up on that offer.

This is just more evidence of someone fibbing in my book. In the Suggestions Thread you're offing to write a N-Body Gravity Simulation in any language, implying that you are proficient in all computer languages.  ::)

This is another example of Tom accusing me lying because he doesn't understand the subject.

I never once claimed I was 'proficient in all computer languages'.  That is Tom making assumptions about a subject he seems to not know much about. What I implied was that I could learn any language quick enough to write a simple program in it. I was offering a demonstration to prove it, as an n-body simulator isn't very complex.

I didn't say it was a lie. I said that I considered it further evidence of someone fibbing. Why claim that you could do it in any language and then later claim that you would need to learn the language first? If you have to learn it, then you can't do it.

fib - noun - a trivial or childish lie

Wrong, you did say it. Using a synonym for the word lie is still calling someone a liar.

I claimed I could do it in any language because I figured if I just posted some code you would accuse me of copying it. I did that as a way to prove that I wrote it.

I was also confident I could learn any language fast enough to write a simple program in it quickly. 

I thought all of this would be obvious, but you appear to know less about programming than I had assumed. My mistake.

I claim that I can find an address using a map.  Now... this applies to maps and places I have never seen or been.  I might have to look at the map and figure it out.  DOes this make me a liar if I claim to know how to read a map?  Your entire argument is nonsense here.

"I'm a great linguist! Tell me something and I'll translate it for you in any language of your choosing!" "Okay, wait... I need to learn that language first... But I'm an expert linguist. And once you know one language it's easier to learn others..."

Straw man, not even going to bother with that.

Stop claiming that you're an expert who has special knowledge which wins your arguments if you don't want to be called on your claims.

I win arguments by presenting the facts as I know them.  Such as pictures I took that show stars have circular trails.  I never said I was an expert at star trails, I said I took lots of pictures of them. 

What special knowledge? Remembering what settings I used on my camera when I took the picture? Sure, I have special knowledge of how to adjust my camera settings.

Not necessarily. Your initial intent may have been different, but your inability to back down when you're proven wrong does make you a liar.

Does Tom not backing down here make him a liar?

*

Offline JSS

  • *
  • Posts: 1235
  • Math is math!
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #15 on: January 31, 2021, 10:56:48 PM »
Tom simply doesn't understand I was claiming to be able to do what nearly anyone with experience in programming can do.

Is this allowed then? To jump straight to accusing people of lying when they claim to be able to do something not particularly difficult? I can do the same thing?
I don't see any reason for you not to point out what you just did - that any programmer could write such a simulation in any language, maybe with a little bit of help from Google/StackOverflow. Tom is clearly wrong, and pointing out that he's wrong is not a personal attack. Was any moderation action taken against you for pointing this out? Looking at the logs, the answer appears to be a resounding "no".

It baffles me that this needs explaining. Do Americans really struggle this much to tell the difference between being told they're wrong and being personally attacked?

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.

And yes, being called a liar is a personal attack.  If you think it isn't... that explains a lot.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #16 on: January 31, 2021, 11:02:33 PM »
An example:
-You claimed that you helped write the RFCs defining netiquette.
-I pointed out, knowing your name, that you do not appear as the author of any of the RFCs.
-Your response was not to withdraw your claim, but rather to double down on it.
-You therefore eliminated any room for misunderstanding, and cemented yourself as a liar.

I just went through that whole thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=16791.msg218490#msg218490

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.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12621
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #17 on: January 31, 2021, 11:27:45 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2021, 11:47:31 PM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1940
    • View Profile
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2021, 12:05:18 AM »
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.

No, you guys were talking about forum experience, what proper netiquette is, blah, blah, blah. All he said was in response to your "opinion":

You think your opinion is as good as a fact.
Basic netiquette really isn't my opinion. Much of it was written before I was able to opine about it.

Consider learning it. You'll have a much better time online. :)

Yeah, and I was there helping write it long before you ever touched a keyboard. You have NO idea how silly you sound when you say things like that.  Not quite as silly as claiming the world is Flat, but it's up there. Good one! ::)

You're the one who stated that he claimed he was an original author of the RFC's:

If, as you claim, you are indeed one of the original RFC writers, then your name and full address are already in the public domain.

To which he replied that he wasn't as I previously referenced.

All of that is is a long way from your assertion that he "therefore eliminated any room for misunderstanding, and cemented (himself) as a liar." That's a pretty high charge that is greatly unsupported, wildly misinterpreted & misrepresented by you.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12621
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Personal attack?
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2021, 12:07:35 AM »
You're the one who stated that he claimed he was an original author of the RFC's
I already provided a quote in which he claimed to have helped to write it. I do not think lying about that quote's existence (while including it in your own post) is going to advance your position.

To which he replied that he wasn't as I previously referenced.
No, friend. That was him replying to me pointing out just how trivial his lie is to see through - he claimed to have co-written a document which would have revealed his name, while exclaiming that he obviously wouldn't reveal his name. Going "Hah, a-haaaa... I didn't actually say what I said!" at that point really doesn't make him look any better.

Given that your knowledge of the subject boils down to "this and that, blah blah blah", I strongly doubt you have the prerequisite knowledge to really opine on the subject. However, given your own track record, it is unsurprising that you're religiously rushing to the defence of an RE'er on a subject you don't understand. Birds of a feather, and all that.

EVEN NOW, you both have the option to simply withdraw your lies and explain that you were mistaken about your past and/or sentences that were written down right in front of your eyes. And yet, time and time again, you choose to double down. I guess it's difficult to break the cycle!
« Last Edit: February 01, 2021, 12:13:23 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice