Don Carlo, as usual you have done an awesome job of soberly trying to sort out the facts. Thank you.
Caroline, no, I don't get it.
Okay, let’s try to clear this up. What don’t you get?
That's why I asked to have it simply stated.
What exactly is it?
There is a 7 page thread on a topic about lies, and I still don't know what exactly the lie is.
Yes, what lie are you talking about?
If OW, or you or anyone can state it, that would be great.
I don’t know. I have identified lies, and now you want me to identify more.
Here’s one that developed to a point.
For example, Gerry claims he was the Legal Officer and the Intelligence Officer on the Apollo. There were no such posts on the Apollo according to Karen#1 and Mike Rinder. Why has Gerry embellished his resume?
This was in a black PR attack of a number of posts from J. Swift. I challenged his lie:
For a malevolent purpose – to black PR Gerry as an embellisher of his resume -- you assume or invent facts of which there is no evidence. Please identify where Karen and Mike Rinder stated that Gerry was not the legal officer or intelligence officer on the Apollo, or where they stated that there were no such posts on the ship. If they stated this to you orally, please say what exactly they stated, and when.
J. Swift avoided the sincere challenge and tried to shift the burden of proof onto Gerry:
J. Swift wrote:
Caroline, I never made the claim that Gerry Armstrong was the Legal Officer and the Intelligence Officer on the Apollo. Gerry Armstrong himself made the claim. Therefore the burden is on Gerry Armstrong to produce the Apollo issue that named him as the Legal Officer and the Intelligence Officer.
Where is Gerry's evidence? Where are the documents to support his claims? Doesn't he have a crew list that named him and his posts?
As I understand it, all Legal and Intelligence were run by Mary Sue Hubbard out of the Guardians Office at St. Hill.
J. Swift continued in that thread with black PR, but refused to address the lie he had told that I had challenged.
He added more lies:
Caroline, Gerry's significant misrepresentations to Pravda go to my argument that Gerry has lied about his Scientology resume and legal case:
* Gerry cannot be hunted down and killed by the Cult of Scientology as he claimed to Pravda.
* Gerry was never the "Legal Officer of the Scientology Organization" as he claimed to Pravda.
The issue that this thread undertook to clarify is whether or not lying is fine on OCMB. It is already known that telling a person that he has told a lie is against board rules. I know Operatingwog said something about you recently creating this as a new rule. And you have not confirmed if it's an old rule or a new rule.
As I've stated, I believe that this rule, whether it is new or old, encourages lying. And that leads to the conclusion that lying here is better than fine.
But with these sample lies that Swift told, considering that they are not told in isolation but are part of a black campaign by Swift and others that it stretches over time, to multiple forums, and over back channels, it seems to me that simply indicating the lies must be an acceptable practice because lying has been so encouraged here.
Please address this issue, rather than the game you're playing.