What IS good, and how do we determine it?

[Huggy Bear]

Guess he wasn't up to the challenge. It's been three days now.

I was going to leave it, but you just had to open your mouth...

In response to Stimbo's quote.

Good point. In order for a charge of slander or libel to be upheld, the statement in question has to be untrue.

And anyone who says "incorrectomundo" has to be immediately suspect.

Let's go back a few pages in this thread where I was accused of lying by Esquilax.

I have no interest in the rest of your self serving platitudes, however...

You did not have your "sig privileges" revoked, so kindly do not lie about mod actions. You were told to remove the sig you had put up at the time, not for quoting somebody- that's your second lie- but because the quote itself was nothing but trolling, a way for you to taunt another user on the site. We have rules against trolling, and your sig had been found to be in violation of those rules. You had your opportunity to argue your case at the time and you failed, you do not then get to misrepresent what happened later.

Interestingly enough, you said nobody had yet provided evidence of you lying, and then in the very next post you lied twice for personal gain; did you just think I'd forgotten that report? That we don't have it archived for posterity? All this was explained to you at the time, you know.

I in the first instance he states....

You did not have your "sig privileges" revoked, so kindly do not lie about mod actions.

So I'm lying when I say my sig had been permanently disabled?
Then whats this?

It's a non-issue now, as we have permanently suspended Huggy's signature.

There's your proof of slander
As for the second instance

You were told to remove the sig you had put up at the time, not for quoting somebody- that's your second lie- but because the quote itself was nothing but trolling, a way for you to taunt another user on the site.

It was Esquilax's position that I was misrepresenting Fatandfaithless

Quoting people is not the issue, as you were told then, and were told again now. The issue in the first case is you were using it to taunt another member after you both had been speedbumped, and in the second you misrepresented the content you were quoting; it was a simple mistake that had been retracted cheerfully once that had come to light, and you were representing it without that crucial end portion to make the person you were quoting seem unreasonable. That's both trolling and against our rules on quoting people accurately; how many times do you need to be told the same damn thing before it gets into your head? You were not warned for quoting someone in your sig.

*emphasis mine*
(the underlined portion I already proved false by providing evidence that I had actually created that sig BEFORE mod intervention.)
As for FAF's retraction, I posted the full exchange, If anything was misrepresented, it was the full measure of his ignorance.

I kinda assumed he meant after that, since apparently a scientific discovery had been made.

Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine.  Yes, observation is the first step.

No, you can't have evidence to form a question, that's nonsensical.  YOu record observations, and form a question that requires evidence to conclude.  That's how hypotheses are proven wrong, because they aren't supported by evidence.

Additionally, you're conflating observations and claims.  Scientific observations are recordings of events or data points, which are then investigated to find the cause of the observation.  Your faith healing/God-creator/etc claims are claiming an explanation right off the bat.

Like I said before, FAF makes an excuse as if he didn't understand the question, then insinuates IN THE PART I LEFT OUT that "verifying the result" is the second step in the scientific method.....STILL WRONG!

FaF should of been glad I left that out....

Unless you can show where exactly FaF was misrepresented, that is proof of a second instance of slander.
We'll see if Esquilax acknowledges he was wrong....

What I find funny is, you can insult a "theist" to your hearts content... not considered trolling or flaming, but quote someone's embarrassing statement in your signature....THAT is trolling.