David Guyatt Wrote:I realize that Peter Dawson has now been banned, so I am only going to point out the following in order to correct any lingering doubt about his continued misrepresentation of the stated facts:

Quote:After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

Jim Fetzer clearly stated in his post No. 179 that: "it is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true..."

Firstly it was an "understanding" not a statement of fact. You cannot sue someone for their "understanding" whether that "understanding" is accurate or not.

Secondly, no matter how many dictionaries you consult, you can no more libel (or, indeed, slander) a telescope than a telegraph pole - or a hatstand, or a handkerchief. Because it is a thing not a person. Ergo, the Hubble Space telescope is a thing, not a person.

To say otherwise is to willfully misrepresent Jim Fetzer's post.

End of story.

Quote:
I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Keith Millea Wrote:

Quote:
I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

Charles Drago Wrote:The penetration/disinformation strategy that is working quite nicely here at the DPF has now expanded to include the classic good cop (Lewis)/bad cop (Dawson) tactic.

How many times do you have to witness this before you recognize it as enemy action?

Have we learned nothing?

David Guyatt Wrote:Keith, forgive me for speaking frankly, but I don't think Matthew is malicious. On the EF, at least in my somewhat less than acute memory, his posts were always factual or reasoned and understandable. I often didn't agree with his perspective, but I don't recall him ever engaging in ad homs or similar. And on more than one occasion he pulled me up on factual errors, and I had to apologize for these mistakes.

This, I think, is a good thing. An intelligent discussion requires opposing views intelligently debated. The day we all agree, is the day we give up the ghost of any possibility of advancing civilization.

I can only speak from my personal point of view, but the problem with the discussion in this thread to date was the intrusion of a sly agenda. That and the use of a device of using one poster to conceal other controlling minds behind it, something that is expressly forbidden in the DPF Rules of Engagement numbered 9, 10 & 11.

But hey, the same thing will be tried again and again and again. It's the way our world is configured.

Take care.

David

Keith Millea Wrote:

David Guyatt Wrote:Keith, forgive me for speaking frankly, but I don't think Matthew is malicious. On the EF, at least in my somewhat less than acute memory, his posts were always factual or reasoned and understandable. I often didn't agree with his perspective, but I don't recall him ever engaging in ad homs or similar. And on more than one occasion he pulled me up on factual errors, and I had to apologize for these mistakes.

This, I think, is a good thing. An intelligent discussion requires opposing views intelligently debated. The day we all agree, is the day we give up the ghost of any possibility of advancing civilization.

I can only speak from my personal point of view, but the problem with the discussion in this thread to date was the intrusion of a sly agenda. That and the use of a device of using one poster to conceal other controlling minds behind it, something that is expressly forbidden in the DPF Rules of Engagement numbered 9, 10 & 11.

But hey, the same thing will be tried again and again and again. It's the way our world is configured.

Take care.

David

David,
I hear what you say,and I have to agree that Matthew is always pretty curtious in his posts.I had no need to disparage him.Thanks for the wise words.........

Matthew Lewis Wrote:

Keith Millea Wrote:

Quote:
I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

I've read the thread but not that closely. Why is that hard to understand?

Keith Millea Wrote:

Matthew Lewis Wrote:

Keith Millea Wrote:

Quote:
I'm not getting involved. I have no opinion. I honestly haven't been paying that close attention. I believe I only mentioned the resolving ability of the Hubble.

Matthew hasn't been paying much attention,except that he has been parked over here at DPF ever since this thread came here from the EF.:rofl:

I've read the thread but not that closely. Why is that hard to understand?

Matthew,
I'm of the opinion that you have been paying close attention to this thread.To say you have no opinion about it is hard to swallow,but you are entitled to one.I don't really ever see you attack people personally,so I would have done myself better by not saying anything at all.So please excuse me for my rudeness.

Keith

Matthew Lewis Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:The penetration/disinformation strategy that is working quite nicely here at the DPF has now expanded to include the classic good cop (Lewis)/bad cop (Dawson) tactic.

How many times do you have to witness this before you recognize it as enemy action?

Have we learned nothing?

It is accusations and atitudes like this that have kept me from posting much here. This is the same reason I have cut back posting at EF as well. Do you treat everybody you disagree with like this?