Leaderboard

We have to be critical of our own evidence, because the skeptics are not going to cut us any slack. And its not infighting that makes us slip backwards, its shoddy work and crack pot claims. And that goes for any of us, including you and me. The BFF is hard on people making unsubstantiated claims, it was tradition long before I got here. And its been a long hard road for me myself to embrace it at times. It's not an easy thing watching someone you consider a friend get eviscerated on the BFF and leave. But the reality of the situation in that if you make an extraordinary claim you best be ready to back up that claim with proof.......no one gets a free pass here. If in the future Melba Ketchum's study is vindicated by science? I'll gladly offer my apologizes.

Plussed. Why should we treat Ketchum with any more respect than Standing or Biscardi??? She has way bigger problems than any of us nobodies on this forum.....like the Houston chronicle that published an independent study on her work. That she claimed was just propoganda to discredit her.... I have great disdain for the whole business of sueing people. And I would never consider sueing any of you for talking bad about me especially if my grandiose claims of proof never bore fruit. I view it as a citizens right to do so. Nobody should be able to gag you for speaking the truth. Where is the proof Ketchum? Standing? Biscardi? No where. Just a quick point. I agree with you regarding lawsuits but I would mention that just because we dislike the idea doesn't mean we should disregard the potential liability risk. There is a specific rider which one may apply to ones homeowners liability insurance to cover claims of libel/slander/etc. as regular homeowners liability policies do not offer those protections. Because, like it or not, we live in a litigious society and posting on a forum opens us up to legal actions. Heck, posting a bad review on yelp has resulted in damage awards going into the millions. We don't have to participate in the ugliness but we shouldn't be blind to the potential risks either....

As a mature individual then you surely understand that in certain instances my facts aren't your facts and vice versa. As an example, I know for a fact what car I drive. I can post a pic and say "this is my car". To you, the observer, it's allegedly my car. If you're looking for some kind of proof, you'll have to get that on your own. Keep at it, I'm confident you'll have your "you've gotta be kiddin me" moment like a lot of us have who've set out into the wilds and checked it out for ourselves. Wes, Facts are, by definition, objective. There are no "personal" facts such as you've presented. Instead, in your example, you are presenting a claim. If your claim is consistent with the objective facts, then corroborating evidence with prove it true.

Plussed. Why should we treat Ketchum with any more respect than Standing or Biscardi??? She has way bigger problems than any of us nobodies on this forum.....like the Houston chronicle that published an independent study on her work. That she claimed was just propoganda to discredit her.... I have great disdain for the whole business of sueing people. And I would never consider sueing any of you for talking bad about me especially if my grandiose claims of proof never bore fruit. I view it as a citizens right to do so. Nobody should be able to gag you for speaking the truth. Where is the proof Ketchum? Standing? Biscardi? No where. It isn't about this ^^^ at all. What is relevant is you declaring her to be in an impaired mental state (I believe the word used was "crazy") and calling her a fraud without including any proof to substantiate your publications. Along those lines is where (IIRC) Mr. Coleman got crossways with Mr. Johnsen over similar comments and he (Coleman) placed himself in a bit of a sticky wicket. So, speaking of "proof" and what you call truth" (regarding your allegations against Ketchum) IMO, you probably would be well served to get busy and find it.