From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C33D97.D414B9F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   No.  I would not accept your memory of someone else's actions or =
statements as fact.  In court that would be hearsay.  I have no doubt =
that you expect everything you say or claim to be accepted as gospel = even
when it is obviously a fiction of your own creation.

   I understand it is not always easy to provide proof.  In those cases =
you should make it clear that you can't support your claims and that you =
are posting facts but instead offering something more along the lines of =
opinion or speculation.  If you want to post conclusions that rely on =
your speculation you should make clear that those are speculation too.  =
You should not post conclusions based on your opinions except as = opinions
themselves and again make it clear that you are unable to = support your
position.

   When you make something up and post it as fact, no one has any =
responsiblity to provide proof to the contrary.  As the person making =
claims it is entirely your responsibility to support your claims.  = Anyone
should be free to dispute your unsupported claims without the = effort of
proof themselves.  Only if you support your claims with facts, = not
opinion nor fiction, should someone bother to provide support to = dispute
your claims.  When someone does dispute your unsupported claims, = if you
still believe your position to be correct you should make the = effort to
support your claims.  Your claims, your effort.

   This is all real simple and how intelligent people have discussions =
of fact.  If you want proof by assertion, encourage Joe Barr and Mike =
Miller to post more.

Rich

  "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:3efda164$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3efd9012$1{at}w3.nls.net...
  >   I'll gadly do so but since we are discussing things you did in =
this
  forum I expect you have some memory of your own actions.<

  So you would accept my memory about that but when I say I remember =
reading
  something somewhere then proof is required? That doesn't seem =
consistant to
  me.

  >  If making claims about something unrelated to you I would not have =
the
  same expectation.  All you are doing now is try to create excuses for =
you,
  or maybe others, not to support claims they make.<

  Not excuses, I'm just trying to get you to accept that sometimes it's =
not
  easy or  possible to provide proof and other times providing proof for =
an
  opinion is totally without requirement so it's perfectly acceptable to =
just
  deny whatever someone is saying in this case instead of making such an =
issue
  of "where is the proof" type of argument.

  If something strikes close to home and you want to dispell some
  mis-information about MS, say you believe that to be mis-information =
instead
  of saying "where's the proof" and that's just as effective as now =
proof is
  required to settle the opposing viewpoints without making a huge =
roadblock
  type issue of it. The discussion will actually progress and get a =
whole lot
  more interesting with a new issue raised. I've seen you go after that =
sort
  of thing but then the whole discussion dies on the vine once it hits =
the
  roadblock, I think your argument would prove much more effective if =
that
  didn't happen because of your strict "where's the proof" requirement.

  Geo.





------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C33D97.D414B9F0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








  
No.  I would not =
accept your=20
memory of someone else's actions or statements as fact.  In court = that=20
would be hearsay.  I have no doubt that you expect everything you
= say or=20
claim to be accepted as gospel even when it is obviously a fiction of = your own=20
creation.
 
   I
understand it is not =
always easy to=20
provide proof.  In those cases you should make it clear that you = can't=20
support your claims and that you are posting facts but = instead offering=20
something more along the lines of opinion or speculation.  If you
= want to=20
post conclusions that rely on your speculation you should make clear = that those=20
are speculation too.  You should not post conclusions based on your =

opinions except as opinions themselves and again make it clear that you = are=20
unable to support your position.
 
   When you
make something up =
and post it=20
as fact, no one has any responsiblity to provide proof to the =
contrary.  As=20
the person making claims it is entirely your responsibility to support = your=20
claims.  Anyone should be free to dispute your unsupported claims
= without=20
the effort of proof themselves.  Only if you support your claims = with=20
facts, not opinion nor fiction, should someone bother to provide support = to=20
dispute your claims.  When someone does dispute your unsupported =
claims, if=20
you still believe your position to be correct you should make the effort = to=20
support your claims.  Your claims, your effort.
 
   This is
all real simple =
and how=20
intelligent people have discussions of fact.  If you want proof
by=20 assertion, encourage Joe Barr and Mike Miller to post
more.
 
Rich
 

  "Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote=20
  in message news:3efda164$1{at}w3.nls.net..."Rich"=20
  <{at}> wrote in message news:3efd9012$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>  =20
  I'll gadly do so but since we are discussing things you did in =
thisforum I=20
  expect you have some memory of your own
actions.<So you =
would=20
  accept my memory about that but when I say I remember =
readingsomething=20
  somewhere then proof is required? That doesn't seem consistant=20
  tome.>  If making claims
about something unrelated =
to you=20
  I would not have thesame expectation.  All you are doing now =
is try=20
  to create excuses for you,or maybe others, not to support claims =
they=20
  make.<Not excuses, I'm just trying to get you
to accept =
that=20
  sometimes it's noteasy or  possible to provide proof and =
other times=20
  providing proof for anopinion is totally without requirement so =
it's=20
  perfectly acceptable to justdeny whatever someone is saying in =
this case=20
  instead of making such an issueof "where is the
proof" type of=20
  argument.If something strikes close to home and you want to =
dispell=20
  somemis-information about MS, say you believe that to be =
mis-information=20
  insteadof saying "where's the proof" and that's just
as effective =
as now=20
  proof isrequired to settle the opposing viewpoints without making =
a huge=20
  roadblocktype issue of it. The discussion will actually progress =
and get a=20
  whole lotmore interesting with a new issue raised. I've seen you =
go after=20
  that sortof thing but then the whole discussion dies on the vine =
once it=20
  hits theroadblock, I think your argument would prove much more =
effective=20
  if thatdidn't happen because of your strict "where's the
proof"=20
  =
requirement.Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_0037_01C33D97.D414B9F0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4