Twebs double standards on accusations of lying.

An unspecified number of moderators at Tweb have shown their double standards in what constitutes adequate support of the accusation that someone lied. You can view it all right here It is hilarious. Seriously. It almost seemed like the moderators looked at this post and decided to go the compete opposite direction. Where do I start? I guess I'll start with the first Exhibit:

Exhibit A: dizzle told me that my accusation of lying was not supported because of " a plethora of numerous honest explanations were available and reasonable." Does that go for the JPH in the other thread? obviously not, they went in the complete opposite direction with that one since there were a "plethora of numerous honest explanations available and reasonable as well."

Exhibit B: Pixie came into a thread and posted a recycled explanation for his lie. Dizzle stated that pixies bogus, bunk, ignorant, stupid explanation was a reasonable one, thus my accusation of pixie lying was not substantiated. Does that go for JPH in the other thread? NO! because lofts came into that thread and offered a "reasonable" explanation as well, and yet they persisted in calling him a liar. Again, they went in the opposite direction.

Exhibit C: Jack Bauer told me that I cannot substantiate that a person is lying "without even asking them things like "how do you know I said that? Surely you must have read it to know that?"" (I.e. being circumspect). Does that go for JPH in the other thread? of course not! JPH did not ask Loftus any questions before he accused him of lying, nor were questions required before his lie was substantiated. For the third time, they saw what JPH did and went in the complete opposite direction.

Now don't get it twisted. Loftus and pixie both told lies and both myself and JPH substantiated our claims, that is what I think and that is what the evidence clearly shows. The problem here is that according to dizzle and jack bauer, both loftus and pixie either lied or did not lie, there is no one or the other, there is no distinction. To be fair, dizzle did try to defend herself, if you call this pathetic hand wave a defense.

I already told him that he is not going to get anywhere by trying to parse through years of forum history and finger-pointing.

...

TD, this is private property. The staff are volunteers. We allow ranting against our policies in the interest of free speech, but ultimately this is our hobby and not to be a source of constant irritation and complaints against the good faith efforts to fairly administrate. You disagree. Time to move on.

Really? years of forum history and finger pointing? are your dreadlocks on too tight? did you get blue hair dye in your eye? it doesn't matter how many years of forum history I went through. Either the rules apply to everyone at all times or they do not, it is that simple, finger pointing? ya, to show your double standards I must "point the finger" at the person who the rules don't apply too in order to expose your double standards. The private property bit is just too sad. The fact that it is private properly no more shows my claim is unsubstantiated than the fact that a murder that takes place on private property shows it was not illegal to kill that person. She offers no logical argument, no evidence, she basically dismisses all of her double standards by engaging in the childish reasoning of "My toys My rules." Pathetic really. You would think that a forum that has the headline "we debate theology...seriously" their administrator of all people would be smarter than your average 12 year old.