>I do not deny that Gish makes "questionable statements", but that is
>not what is asserted. What is asserted is that he is "dishonest".
>Now that requires that the accuser knows somehow that Gish
>deliberately says or writes something as true that he knows to be
>false.
I think that it might be worthwhile for you to extend your definition of
"dishonest". In addition to your definition, dishonesty could be
demonstrated by:
- deliberately saying or writing something as false that one knows to be true,
- deliberately saying or writing something as true, without qualification,
that one does not know to be true,
- deliberately saying or writing something as false, without qualification,
that one does not know to be false,
- encouraging or condoning a third party engaging in the above acts, or
- failing to publicly refute known publicly-made false claims of a third
party about oneself or one's position.
Perhaps you might consider it useful to assess the honesty, or otherwise, of
Gish against this somewhat stricter criteria.
Regards
Derek
-----------------------------------------------------
| Derek McLarnen | dmclarne@pcug.org.au |
| Melba ACT | dmclarne@telecom.com.au |
| Australia | |
-----------------------------------------------------