Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: the Zapno (tm) anti-static device and dishonesty



On Thu, 1 Aug 2002, Bill Thorp wrote:

I have made my position clear, William Beaty only needs to remove the
offensive material from public access and the "zapno" keyword from his site

I'm happy to remove the keyword from my "humans and sparks" page. I'm
very glad to see that you aren't trying to hide the car-keys trick from
your customers. I must revise my opinion upwards.

However, unless you can show me that some specific sentences are clearly
libel, I will not try to convince Dan to alter the PHYS-L archives. You
obviously don't like my criticizing you where your customers can see it.
But criticism is not transformed into "libel" just because you're offended
by the criticism. There's a difference between "I'm offended", versus
"your words are inherently offensive."

Which sentences do you think are libel? If Dan M. thinks they're libel,
he might remove those messages from the archives even over my objections.
It might pay you to concentrate on certain sentences in certain messages.

From what I know of internet law, in the USA the online forums are legally
considered to be similar to the editorial page in a newspaper. The host
isn't responsible for content. As with any letters to the editor, good
rebuttals can cancel out published negative opinions, and if something is
true, then it's not libel. But if the target of criticism didn't rebut,
but instead attempted to sue the newspaper, or tried to remove the
microfilm of old newspapers from the libraries, they would do genuine
evil. The law does not allow this. If they even TRIED to censor the
newspaper, it would look very bad in the eyes of the audience. Perhaps
the laws and the attitude in other countries are different, and freedom of
speech isn't so "holy" or protected in Australia.

and we can forget about the whole issue, meanwhile there is a likely hood
the damages will progress via search engine activity.

People searching on "zapno" will soon find our whole exchange and not just
the first message. You could have calmly and efficiently destroyed each
of my arguments to show that I'm mistaken. If you instead use lots of
intellectually dishonest tactics, you'll dig your own grave in front of
the whole online audience.

I don't know about others, but when I read an exchange where one person
criticises another, but then the other does all kinds of things except
rebut the criticism, I conclude that the criticism was dead on, and the
target is desparately trying to erect a smokescreen or to otherwise
deflect attention from the original criticism.

Here's a hint: just say "I can see where your opinion comes from, and I
might have felt that way too, but you misunderstood; you're wrong because
of X and Y and Z." If you just become angry and start applying derogatory
labels, onlookers will conclude that my criticism was accurate.

Here's another: when arguing, avoid replacing careful reasoning with
hurridly-applied labels. Don't say "he's grandstanding." That's just
manipulation; it's a persuasive tactic and namecalling (which is a logic
fallacy.) Instead, say "when Bill says xxxxxxxxx, he's just grandstanding
rather than giving his honest opinion, and here's why." Then say why.
Notice that in my messages I essentially say this: "Because of X and Y
and Z, I think Mr. Thorp is being dishonest." If I simply called you
dishonest, period, that's ad-hominem which Dan M. would warn me about.
Or Dan might even kick me off PHYS-L for it. But if I give my negative
opinion and then give details why I think that way, then even though you
become offended, what I've actually done is to perform detailed criticism,
not slander.

Be warned: if you talk yourself into believing that my words are
inherently disgusting or "offensive", you warp only your own perceptions,
and this does not talk the audience into believing anything similar.

It pays to maintain an internal mental "chorus" or "Platonic daemon" who
will report just how the disinterested observers might respond to your
words. People who do this habitually can't get away with dishonesty,
since their "internal audience" will be quite aware of their distortion
attempts and sneer mightly. An "internal audience" keeps us honest
because it can see our thoughts, not just our written words. Fooling it
is not possible.

On the other hand, for anyone who cannot tolerate the tiniest bit of
public criticism, having an "internal audience" would be a nightmare come
true: a critic who can read their mind.


(((((((((((((((((( ( ( ( ( (O) ) ) ) ) )))))))))))))))))))
William J. Beaty SCIENCE HOBBYIST website
billb@eskimo.com http://amasci.com
EE/programmer/sci-exhibits amateur science, hobby projects, sci fair
Seattle, WA 206-789-0775 unusual phenomena, tesla coils, weird sci