--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > Having "said my piece" earlier, I've been staying > out of all this. But I'll make one comment as to > when someone has stepped over the line. It involves > the use of the word "liar." > > IMO, *most* of the uses of that word here are in > response to someone's *opinion* of another person. > Person 1 says something that he or she believes > is completely accurate about Person 2; it is > Person 1's *opinion*.
In my my own usage of the term--because this is what Barry is primarily referring to here--this is not correct. I use the term "liar" for a person who makes deliberately factually false statements, not one who issues opinions that I disagree with (about me or anything else). I'd ask Barry to provide examples to the contrary, but there wouldn't be any point. His "opinion" about the general usage here of the term "liar" is also incorrect, in my observation. It's rare that someone is called a liar for merely expressing an opinion about someone else. If it does happen, it's likely to be because the person using the term knows that the person expressing the "opinion" has evidence that clearly documents the inaccuracy of that "opinion." I'd ask Barry to provide examples to the contrary of any of the above, but there wouldn't be any point. <snip> > In general, anytime someone tries to justify "attacking > back" they are trying to justify a personal attack that > was just made by them. It couldn't be any clearer. In > their minds the personal attack may be justified, but > the very fact that they *are* attempting to justify it > shows that they know it was a personal attack, and > thus against the FFL guidelines. <duh> The point of such a "justification," obviously, is that if the guidelines don't apply to all, they shouldn't apply to anybody. If there is now actually going to be *enforcement* of the guidelines--either by Rick or by consensus of the group--the person who made the initial attack will presumably be sanctioned for doing so, and there will be no need to "attack back."
