# **Let's Cut to the Chase

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Rick [Rick] on November 03, 1999 at 18:46:14 {eZOTANvCI67ajbiu2wnkFMFBt36Xyc}:

In Reply to: *Let's Cut to the Chase posted by Cygnus on November 03, 1999 at 16:14:20:

Then perhaps the solution is to not make accusations or call others a liar. Illustratively, rather than calling Susie a liar, couldn't Albert have said to her, "In the file 123456.html, topic WTS NOT CENSORS! posted 2 days ago (sorry I don't know how to post the link) you said the Watchtower Society has never engaged in censorship and even misquoted one of its publications. Readers can judge for themselves by reading the actual quote below, and Susie's 'abbreviated' quote that yanks it out of context."

Let's say, Cyg, that those readers who are shocked at the implication that Susie might have misquoted (taking a small segment of a paragraph out of context), want to get a sense of if she did it innocently enough, or deceptively? Albert gave them key information without any knowledge of HTML - the posting number, the topic name, the proximity of date ("2 days ago"). The post number itself can be typed into the URL.

Okay, they've gotten that far, see Susie's post, and a lighbulb goes on in their private mind: "Oh, no, Susie is a liar."

Albert, by provided nothing but facts and giving Susie the charity of not even implying she's a "liar," has essentially called Susie a liar because in examining the evidence, readers come to the conclusion that Susie is a liar.

Of course, suppose in examining Susie's post it's evident she simply made an honest error? If Albert is scratching his head and thinking, "we know Susie isn't a liar and she made an honest mistake, but she's a Jaydub and we have to teach them a lesson," then of course Albert would want to simply state "Notice how Susie lies in previous posts like that one recently where she misquoted Watchtower material?" The reader is left to decide if Susie is a "liar," if she perhaps made an honest error (didn't deliberately lie), or clearly didn't tell any untruths? Albert, having nothing to lose, figures a percentage will give his assessment the benefit of doubt (because afterall, Susie is a "Jaydub" and they can't stand them!). Forcing Albert to provide information as demonstrated above, if Susie's post contained no false information, causes Albert to decide to save bandwidth and not embarass himself.

In summary, if the facts speak for themselves, Albert's posting the whereabouts of these facts by typing the post number (123456.html) and pointing out the flaw in the post, will in effect make his point ethically and wonderfully. The facts, not Albert, are calling Susie a liar. If Susie wants to sue for libel, then she can sue the facts! ;-)

On the otherhand, if Albert is simply playing politics and banking on a percentage believing that an innocent person said something they did not, then using references is counterproductive. A simple "Susie lied through her teeth in her last post" is sufficient. Discouraging this type of attack against another saves bandwidth.

Without controlling this type of social behavior, the board sinks to the lowest possible denominator of someone who has credibility within a social structure stating "After reading all of Jan Haugland's posts -- which most of you will find a waste of time -- I can assure you that those who skip them have saved themselves lots of headaches! Without exception every one of his posts contain at least one verifiable lie. Of course, he's going to demand I prove it, but most of you know me from theocratic.net, and you know my posts and dedication to the truth." As a result, a percentage will tune-out Jan Haugland's posts. Every single person on this site could become subject to this type of abuse. De-socializing this sort of behavior, so to speak, is necessary. (I used Jan as an example, because I'm certain every JW would agree that no matter how much they disagree with his anti-God sentiments, it would be unethical to treat him in this manner.) Having a preliminary rule is not "unreal" as you started your post; rather, it discourages anyone from trying this approach.

By the way, I saw your picture. Have the elders been cool about your new look (assuming you once had the "Roman look" of shaved face, short-medium length hair and no beard)? If not, what is their reaction? How about your wife's? Back in the 70's when I grew a beard briefly (to test the waters and see how far I could push my limits of personal choice in grooming with the elders), my (ex-)wife loved it. She confided in me the sisters were jealous because their husbands wouldn't grow beards (which costed responsibilities, such as not getting to carry the microphone). Does yours? ;-)

Rick

Follow Ups:

- ***Let's Cut to the Chase Cygnus 19:44:04 11/03/99 (0)
- ***Let's Cut to the Chase Polly 19:00:08 11/03/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: ***Let's Cut to the Chase

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]