From: eager@eagercon.com (Michael J. Eager)
Subject: Re: Threats and Name-calling
Reply-To: eager@eagercon.com
Organization: Eager Consulting
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:21:43 GMT

In article 13005@cascade.Stanford.EDU, king@glacier.Stanford.EDU (Robin King) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.231332.20642@pei.com> fred_s@earwax.pei.com (Fred Scott) writes:
>>
>>The trouble is, it's generally accepted that if a person makes an assertion,
>>it's that person who has to back it up with hard data.  Why should those of
>>differing opinions be forced to prove the opposite just because someone
>>happened to make an assertion?
>>
>>That you happened to see the same article tends to substaniate Eric's
>>position but it still isn't sufficient.  Both of you may have misread
>>the meaning of the data - i.e., it may not be saying what you claim
>
>
>	You're not addressing the point of my posting, which is the
>	immature behavior of certain people on this net.  Do you feel 
>	it's OK to call people liars, as Lefty and Henry did?  To 
>	threaten to come over and shoot them as Eric Brunner did?  
>	Probably not.  

I think that Fred is addressing the point of your posting.

There is immature behavior on the net.  One of these behaviors is to make rash
statements and then scream that one is being called a liar when asked to provide
anything to back up the statements.

Another is to send out messages, both public and private as you have, where you
claim everybody is calling you a liar.

If you read the posts on this thread, Eric's "threats" were clearly a joke.
Eric P had repeatedly been asked where he got some information; his responses
were either vague or unresponsive.  After several similar responses, a certain
level of frustration sets in and people resort to humor.  Sorry if you didn't 
get it, but, as Leghorn says, "It's a joke, son."


>
>	As I understand it, the airline safety subject came up as a 
>	side note, not as a topic unto itself.  Would you like to
>	formalize a rule, beginning right now, that NOTHING you say,
>	zip, zero, zilch, is allowed unless you have at your disposal
>	a traceable, documented, numbered, ID'd publicaton?  And if
>	you slip and refer to anything, you're called a liar?

There were several statements made, one about DRAM prices jumping up (I think
the claim was 4X) the week after the last US DRAM fab closed.  This was followed
by some claim that the Japanese airlines have a significantly lower safety record.
Several people asked for any kind of support for these claims.  The most 
substative response was to be told to go to the library, including a rather
childish insult about whether the poster knew how to use a card catalog.

Common courtesy says that if you make some rash statement, you should have
some way of supporting it.  If you have none, then you can assert that you either
know or believe it to be true.  Don't offend the intelligence of others by
obfuscation or insults.

>
>	If people had said, "Look, I'd like to see that report myself
>	and see how the stats differ with what I was told by a
>	different source, because I think you might have missed
>	something," that's fine.  All you can say is, "Sorry, I
>	don't have it, it's just what I read in a magazine" and
>	go from there.  End of subject.  Believe what I said or
>	not, it's up to you to decide if it makes sense.  If the 
>	other person is so interested/upset about your statement 
>	then perhaps they should go research the subject on their own.

Robin, people said exactly that.  Eric never made any response like you suggest.
His responses were childish and insulting.  Your harping on this imagined 
issue seems like a tangent.

Nobody called anybody a liar.  Let's end that thread here.


---
Michael J. Eager		Michael.Eager@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting		(415) 325-8077 
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141

Xref: sparky ba.general:4413 misc.kids:25839 misc.legal:18533 talk.politics.guns:22008