Of Slander and Libel

[LadyEagle]

Please note that according to the Baptist Board User Agreement and/or BB Posting Rules no threads dealing with human sexuality will be allowed in an open public forum. If you feel the need to discuss any subject matter dealing with human sexuality the proper and only permissible place to do so is in either the BB Private Men's Forum or the BB Private Women's Forum depending on the gender of the person starting the thread.
Yours in Christ,

Lady Eagle,
Forum Moderator

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Currently there is a 7 page or more accurately a 130-135 post limit before the six hour warning is given. The six hours is Pacific time. So if the warning is for 2am Pacific, the thread won't be closed until 1000-1200 Eastern.

also:

Also, please do not post entire articles - please post only a paragraph quote or two and then the link to the source so we can adhere to Copyright Laws. Thanks.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

They are not:

• a difference of opinion.

• a difference of interpretation of facts.

For example, I am a Republican in more or less the mold of Theodore Roosevelt. My father (who grew up on a farm during the Depression) is a New Deal Democrat. We have differences of opinion and interpretations of facts. Neither one of us thinks the other is a liar.


Slander (from the American Heritage Dictionary):

• Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
• A false and malicious statement or report about a person.

Further, Slander is verbal\oral. Libel involves defamation in other forms of communication, for example, the written word, images, or here on the Board.

So, Slander is not:

• Asking for proof of a statement.
• Asking how an opinion was arrived at.
• Responding to a comment based on a poster's previous posts on the same or other relevant threads.

Please consider this from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

In my experience, truth like chlorine bleach is the best for dealing with the stain of libel or slander.

Questioning a members salvation in a public form is actionable. At a minimum, posts will be deleted and posters warned. At a maximum, banning will occur after deliberation by the Admin Council.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

To lower the rhetorical heat, the Admin Council has decided:

Henceforth, derogatory nicknames will not be allowed when referring to either public figures or fellow Board members.​

 

[Brent W]

To add to this: I am personally sick of coming on this site and reading some of the most immature childish content from a select few members here. From the immaturity of derogatory names to flat out calling members of our forum names.

Its not going to be tolerated anymore, at all. Bans from the political section of the forum and/or out right bans from the whole forum will happen to those that continue to repeat these type of violations.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I'm passing along a blog by my favorite Arminian, Roger Olson, who holds that a principle of debate should be "do not impute to others beliefs you regard as logically entailed by their beliefs but that they explicitly deny."

"There is no logical fallacy in saying that a person's belief logically entails a belief they do not hold. Logical fallacy only appears when it is said that because the person holds belief A he or she must also hold belief B which is explicitly denied."

A New Name for an Old Fallacy: "Assailment-by-Entailment"

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/roger...-for-an-old-fallacy-assailment-by-entailment/

 

[Squire Robertsson]

In the spirit of Colossians 4:6

Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man.

The use of dims when referring to the Democrats and or their party will be discontinued.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Posts violating Godwin's Law or commiting a reductio ad Hitlerum fallacy will be edited or deleted.

 

[Salty]

IMHO - while giving proper respect to those whom you disagree - speaks more
of the author, than the individual whom you hope to discredit.