darkdog

Because any dishonest windbag can lie and say that XYZ resides in some document and then impugn the research skills and comprehension ability of those who can't find it when the real reason they can't find it is because XYZ simply doesn't exist. The same goes for the internet at large. It's a great way to increase tension while nobody learns anything useful (except that the person making the claim in the first place is a dishonest windbag).

__________________
Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Cowpuppy

Yes, I agree. If someone is so peeved about a post....then it is there issue....not others....and to make demands that someone supply certain info.....cuz they want it.......well, we are not here to be pushed around.
Sure we can provide links on occassion.....but chat should be a pleasant experience...not college exam...or demand situation.....besides....once again....some just post biased links from biased journalistic publishers.....so where is the fairness in that. We have to provide real factual links on demand while others only respond with biased bunk. Double standard from the demanders.
If you got a judge around to insist on things and to judge the links non-biased authenticy, then we have a game....otherwise just being yanked around with bunk. Not playing that game.

Cowpuppy

You left out biased links........which don't prove squat....you are arguing for the other side.
So providing these links you insist on are not neccesarily real evidence to disprove your so called dishonest windbags claims.
AND VICE VERSA.
POINT BEING THAT LINKS DON'T NECCESARILY PROVE SQUAT. The dishonest windbags from your side of the aisle can simply post biased drivel from biased journalist, as is often the case. Biased journalism. Doesn't prove squat.
One could provide Limbaugh links or the other moron O'Reilly links all day long....doesn't prove squat.

darkdog

I don't think every little fact needs to be sourced. That would be over the top, but if a fact comes under dispute, it's not unreasonable to ask for the source. That's what people do when they want to get to the truth of a matter. It's the best way to find out how solid a fact is- whether it comes from a bogus or reliable source and whether the source actually backs up the claimed fact (which it may or may not do).

If you don't remember or can't find it or don't have the time to track it down, at least be up front about that.

__________________
Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

sallylou

Um, doesn't talking about a "particular poster" here provide attention? Maybe we should keep this discussion very general to avoid that?

__________________


Happy holidays!

deafskeptic

I have always preferred a 3 party link rather than either liberal or conservative sites and it hasn't been easy for me to find them sometimes. I often post from sources from CNN (A bit more often than I like) as it seems to be more neutral than other sites like Fox or MSN. Not as neutral as I'd like though. There's a reason why I don't post from Counterpunch or Zmag. Conservatives would yell "BIAS" and rightly so.

Some good non partisan sites:

Factcheck, Political Base but I'd view it with the same degree of skepticism as Wiki because readers can edit it like Wiki's readers can edit it. Others are Project Vote Smart.

__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.

souggy

I am inclined to side with darkdog here. I don't want to read an enrtire book by Fhillipe just To find a two sentence blurb that the Sioux could had civilized North America if they domesciated big-horned sheep in an essay centric around South American societies. I would like to know what page it was on.

__________________
Warning! Contains skewed comments & inane ramblings. May cause spontaneous human combustion

jillio

That is quite different that asking for a link. If I tell you that a piece of information is contained in a document, and then tell you which section of the document it is located in, or if that information is obvious through the discussion, then you have a narrow parameter in which to search.

Quite often, narrowing things down to one or two sentences takes things out of context. You miss explanatory information before and after that is necessary to proper interpretation. I think we see that occuring all the time with those selective cut and pastes.

Cowpuppy

Thanks for info......nice to be informed via non-bias site. I guess CNN can be viewed as 'leaning' a little bit left....but they do actually proviode some countering views. Whereas FOX is blatantly full on conservatively biased and afraid to show any countering views. It is SOOOOOO obvious.
And yet they think they are fooling everyone. It's very insulting. Afraid to show a countering view. FOX is actually a republican political tool if you ask me and not a journalistic media.
O'Rielly.....strikes me as a scaredy cat living in glasshouses and glass yachts. What the heck does this person really know about life????? Same goes for Limbhog.and Beck for that matter...the guy who says his detractors have no life and 'fish on the river'. Oh god forbid they are human.

jillio

I use CNN because it is not as right leaning as Faux News, nor is it as left leaning as MSNBC. Like you stated, they do offer differing perspectives.

jillio

If you suspect dishonesty, then it is your responsibility to confirm your suspicion. It is a matter of being responsible for what one wants to learn, or not learn.

I don't have any idea where this sense of entitlement to being spoon fed answers comes from. Seems to be a lot of it around. I believe in teaching a man to fish.

shel90

What if the dishonest windbag provides non-reliable links that are inaccurate?

__________________
Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

SerendipityG3A

I hate to be called a liar. I go to great lengths to try to make what people understand of what I say to be true. As such a person, it's been said to me many times, and I think it applies here, "If you're so confident that what you're saying is true, then there's no harm in proving it." It takes only a moment to tell somebody where you learned something, and if your sources are sound, you should be proud to lead them directly to it. It has been said here, or at least it's how I understood it, that if your sources are too precise, it can serve to take facts out of context. Well, yeah, they can. But they can also serve to give us a better understanding of what exactly the context is. A 500 page book may be too much context for most small pieces of information. Even a 50 page book may be too much. If you give me the page number, I can choose how much "context" I want to read about. To be friendly, you can give the page number, and then say that you strongly recommend that you read the context. Actually, I think all this is just "how to behave in social situations." If it doesn't matter to you that some people may think you're a liar, then you really have no motive to back up what you say. That's my personal view on this anyway.


Maybe that isn't an exact quote up there, but I think the meaning is still there. Somebody feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

jillio

See, that's the point. One has already been told where the information was learned, and credibility has been established any number of times. We are talking about unreasonable requests that go beyond that. "Saying I read it in such and such a document" points one to where the information was obtained. To request a specific line in which it was obtained is a bit excessive.

One should never "choose" context when looking for factual information. That is when erroneous conclusions are reached. One should take the context as intended.

SerendipityG3A

Suppose I read your 500 page book, but fail to find in it the information you said was there. Would you then tell me the page number? Does it really have to come to that?

jillio

Surely you would have questions, if you are actually reading the 500 page book, prior to having completed it, if you are not finding the information you are looking for.

I may have read that 500 page book 10 years ago. It is unreasonable to expect that you be directed to a specific page, paragraph, and line.

But you are also missing the point that there are those posters that demand "a link" not so they will have information at their disposal, but simply to be argumentative. They never bother to access that which is provided.

khar59

As I am a person who just likes to throw things out there and usually can only vaguely remember where I read it, having to come up with the goods so to speak is a pain in the butt! Of course that's coming from a person who doesn't have the "Prove It" mentality! Now, for those of you who do like to have everything referenced etc, people like me would drive you crazy!

jillio

There you go!

Cowpuppy

yeah agreed. For instance....say I read the paper with coffee in morning...see a bit of TV news...and peek on the internet news.......and later in day...at work...say to someone ...'oh I saw in news that such and such happened'......now in real life...I don't have to pull some notes out of my pocket to prove where I got this info....it is just a general observation........someone want to call me on my claim they can go look for it anywhere......casual common courtesy....just says'''oh really?''''but in here now it turns into ...'I think you're a liar...show me the proof'......baloney...that is not casual conversation.
Somebody wants some proof.....go look for it...don't tell me what I need to do in my life.Ya don't believe it then don't believe it. No skin off my back. Sure as hell ain't going to work for you cuz ya got a bug up your butt.

SerendipityG3A

In that case, you could simply say that it was so many years ago that you don't remember, rather than "Find it yourself." I wouldn't expect you to remember after so long, and even if it was just yesterday, it's perfectly okay if you just forgot. Saying, "I've given you all the information you need" vs "I'm sorry, I don't have more specific information" makes a difference. That's my point.

I didn't mean to address the point of troublemakers. I think their problem is their own, and we all have that ignore button if they really bother us that much. But since I've been accused of missing the point, I'll just say that I know there are people out there whose soul purpose in life is to make others suffer, but I would rather misjudge a cruel person as kind and treat him/her with courtesy than misjudge a kind person as cruel and treat him/her with discourtesy. Providing information that I have at my fingertips doesn't make me suffer, much to the troublemakers' distress. If said troublemakers refuse to access the information I provide, it's their loss as far as I'm concerned. If they choose to pursue the matter after ignoring my citation, they can wine and cry to me til they're blue in the face, and I won't waste my time with them. That's not my point though.

By the way, I didn't ask for a paragraph or line, and if you only have a rough guess where I might find it, that's just human, and that's perfectly alright with me. I'm not a university professor. If I were, this is not my classroom. If you aren't able to provide me with enough information, I'm not going to give you a bad grade. I'm perfectly capable of forgetting where I may have read certain things. In fact, it has happened many times.

So, am I clear? I don't mean that like a commander or something. I'm just asking if there's anything I can clarify. I'm not too good with words.

DURAY

shel90, I agreed with you. There are a few hearing people who are so patronizing and oppressive. And we know them and we avoid them.

And another suggestion is to limit postings per day, like 10.
the top 7 posters and their posting # is too much.
31,749
31,211
30,963
23,260
22,421
21,481
21,244

SerendipityG3A

Oh, excuse me, I'm sorry, I'm not talking about "prove it or else" cases. I wouldn't normally ask people to prove what they're saying actually, but if I ask for a citation (I probably wouldn't use that word) and somebody gives me a rude-seeming refusal, that would cause me to doubt that person's honesty. My request for the source in MY personal statements is usually because I'm interested, and would like to read more about it. As was mentioned before, little facts are often out of context, and if I know where the information comes from, I can broaden the context for my own benefit.

SerendipityG3A

There are many on this forum that do a lot of posting, and their posts contribute in a positive way. I would imagine the result of limiting posts per day, especially to something as substantial as ten, would at first cause the same conversations to take longer, then eventually cause the top contributors to become bored and gradually stop contributing. Then the rest of us would leave because we're here to see what they have to say, and when they're saying nothing, we can go read nothing somewhere else.

shel90

Why does the number of post that each poster have matter? Some people have been members here on AD for a long time and their post count build up.

Oh, and why limit to 10 postings a day? Everyone is different and really, nobody should dictate on how people spend their times, IMO.

__________________
Shel~

"A child educated only at school is an uneducated child." -George Santayana

faire_jour

I agree with the bolded part. There is no need to say "prove it" to everything, but I think it is unfair to say "I have proof, but find it yourself." And let's not pretend that doesn't get said by the same people again and again...

AlleyCat

saywhatkid

Well, since I have been a party to this problem of trolling, I apologize publicly here. Using the ignore feature was not an easy decision for me, but it was the right decision. I have never had issues with differing political views, but I do take issues with a general lack of respect for the leadership of my country. Millions have fought and died for our freedoms. Showing lack of respect for a new leader is not the same as not agreeing with him, and I felt many of the topics were veiled attempts to entice replies; which would open the floodgates for posting slanted articles and web sources. Not everything you read on the Internet is fact, or I would have won lotteries, married a beautiful 27 year old, and be hung like a horse.

I recently made a decision to avoid posting in the hot topics, such as politics and current events. It has been a good decision for me, because life has kept me occupied with enough difficult moments that getting a verbal beatdown for expressing an opinion would have driven my spirits just a bit lower. After all, that is what I post; my opinions. I don't spend hours a day researching Obama or Bush. I have too much else on my plate to provide a full discourse on how I feel. Some of these discussions would take several hours of reading to get through all the links and articles. We all pretty much know how certain members stand on things. I still read the topics, but with a grain of salt.

Anyhow, glad to see this subject addressed. There are certainly others that have slipped away after seeing all the ruckus here. Would be nice to come together as a group with a similar objective; to make our world a better place.

__________________
"When the power of love overcomes the love of power,
the world will know peace."
— Jimi Hendrix

Jiro

hey.. I think i'm on the list!

__________________
- Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

darkdog

If someone claims a piece of information exists, whether within a document or on Google, even if I previously thought otherwise, I'll double check thoroughly to make sure. If I still can't find it, I don't automatically assume dishonesty- after all, I could have missed it, or perhaps the information wasn't explicit and I failed to read between the lines. I'll give that person the benefit of the doubt and ask for more specifics. If that person refuses to cooperate after I've given an honest effort, and especially if that person uses the opportunity to smugly deride my research abilities, that's when I determine I'm talking to a dishonest windbag.

__________________
Playing guitar is my 2nd amendment right.

SerendipityG3A

I agree with everything in bold above.