Attn: Addressing some issues that has been going on.

jillio said:
Why should another poster be responsible for someone's inability to locate a specific piece of information within a document? Why should another poster be responsible for providing a direct link to that which can be located doing a general search? If one has been directed to where one can find the information, it is the responsibility of the one seeking the information to locate it for themselves.
Click to expand...
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).
 
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.

jillio said:
Why should another poster be responsible for someone's inability to locate a specific piece of information within a document? Why should another poster be responsible for providing a direct link to that which can be located doing a general search? If one has been directed to where one can find the information, it is the responsibility of the one seeking the information to locate it for themselves.
Click to expand...
 
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 said:
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).
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
Um, doesn't talking about a "particular poster" here provide attention? Maybe we should keep this discussion very general to avoid that?
 
Cowpuppy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
souggy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
deafskeptic said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Cowpuppy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
darkdog said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
darkdog said:
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).
Click to expand...

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

:hmm:
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.
 
SerendipityG3A said:
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.

:hmm:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
SerendipityG3A said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
khar59 said:
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!
Click to expand...

There you go!:wave:
 
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.

khar59 said:
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!
Click to expand...
 
jillio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Back
Top