Posted: Jan 09, 2019 8:11 pm
Cito di Pense wrote:
It's not possible to spell out the difference between what you call "posting with conviction" and simply "posting the same stuff over and over (and over) again". It's also not possible to specify that such behavior is to be tolerated when a person has insufficient control over his or her behavior in public, since we can't diagnose it. Got any other hair-splitting (in)distinctions you'd like to see spelled out in glorious detail?
Making claims unsubstantiated by facts or persistent misunderstandings about what is a fact (hint, hint!) are not against any rules here. The membership is on hand to try to correct misunderstandings about facts, but it's not always possible to do so. That's why it's not against the rules to post unsubstantiated claims. Doing it repetitively about the same issue is not caused by misunderstanding, but by demanding agreement as to what the facts are. It's also not anyone's job (including that of moderation) here to deal responsibly or professionally with learning disabilities, should that be at issue.Destroyer wrote:He needed to be officially warned but clearly was not
About what the fuck, exactly?
I had actually finished with this thread, and haven't visited for days; but coming back and observing such lack of depth in this post, I will respond.
I thought I made it clear that I was talking about established scientific data: i.e. making claims about facts; not just making unsubstantiated claims. When someone makes repeated false claims about information that can actually be analysed and put to the test, that is when they need to be put in their place. Not just for making unsubstantiated claims... The moment that Kafei made repeated claims about the research which were not in accord with the research, that is when he needed to be warned.