Then I have to say I am stunned that you would see things that way.

One is a question asking "IF" something may or "MAY NOT" be true, the other is making a definitive statement that someone is "definitely" a liar and stating that they are knowingly and willingly being untruthfull.

The two are "totally different" things.

If I had wanted to call them a "liar" I would flat out have said something to that effect. "This person is obviously lying" or something of that order would have been my post.

It "ISN'T" an interpretive situation and in fact, you are in effect calling "me" a liar by making your judgement that what I said is the same as doing so.

You are saying that I must be lying because under your interpretation the two are the same and since I have said that I don't mean them to be taken as such and that it wasn't my intent, your response is in effect, calling me a liar, "in your book".

So, what you are saying is that I should also do something that you aren't willing to do yourself again by not posting my opinion on a topic because it is different than yours.

When you say "If you don't think a post has validity, just ignore it" you are saying that I and the rest of us simply shouldn't question what we see here ever.

What I said has been explained to you now on two seperate postings yet you insist on refusing to consider what I have said (again, in effect calling me a liar something that you never do) in that I am questioning the content of the thread as possibly being a fake (big difference between challenging the validity of something in the form of a question and flat out calling someone a liar.)as the truth or at least "my" personal interpretation of it.

I won't try to find yet another way of showing you how wrong I feel (in my opinion) you are as I don't want to turn this into an ugly war thing, but, I will say that what I wrote (amoung other posters)could easily be straightened out by the originator of the post simply coming back and addressing my (and others) posting on the matter.

I also feel bad that you can't see the difference between questioning the validity of a post (asking if it is possible that it isn't true or at least not the entire truth) that can have such a negative effect on the majourity of us and confusing it with any other topics. They have nothing to do with each other.

In this type of situation, a poster comes in and drops a bomb. It can be taken as a warning to those who break our current laws regarding IOP's. It can also be taken as an attempt to cause undue stress and paranoia to people who are already compromised due to health concers.

My point would be that IF it is BS, it has a very negative effect on the collective members here. To say that it is the same as someone saying that some medicine doesn't work for them is, 1, bizzare and also very likely as we all have different reactions to certain medications and, 2, if a single poster where to say that they had a bad experience with a medicine then it is possible that it is a personal problem. If a poster says "Beware, you might be arrested" it is more likely that it can have an impact on several of us. IF that statement isn't true then it is very harmful to everyone here where the other situation is a matter of personal preference and opinion.

The two situations have no connection at all where the boards are concerned.

The truth is that more often then not, these turn out to be false. In this case, who knows what the truth is.

I posted partly jokingly and partly seriously that this, like the others of its kind, sounds like it could be another false posting. (remember, I am questioning this issue, not stating it as fact)

I did that partly because, as I said, I was joking and repeating what has been said before but, I also did was being serious as I wanted to make certain that the members of this board remember how so many of these are never substantiated so they should be taken with a grain of salt.

That before they sit down worried about every car that drives up the street is coming for them, to remember that it is possible that this never happened. Of course, like I said, if the originator wanted to let us know more of what happened or address these issues then it could change things.

I would also say that simply because these posts often seem never to stand up to scrutiny that they should be posted. They have the right to post thier opinion on legal matters here and we have the right to question thier postings. That is how this is supposed to work.

It Isn't supposed to be a situation where simply because we don't agree with something that we should never question it, that is censorship and simply counter productive to the learning process.

In closing, thank you for your response. I have learned allot about your point of view on things in general by your statements. You come off as angry most of the time in my opinion or at least, ready to jump on certain posters and I have always taken it as joking around, I now know better and will be certain to remember that in my future postings with you.

I also think it stands to be repeated again, there is a Great Big Difference between suggesting the potentiality of something not having any merit and flat out calling a poster a liar. I hope that you can one day see that.

Thanks for the sparing, it was interesting.

Ni.