Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
Host...I understand and share your frustration, but I dont know that there is a solution other than 'outing' bogus new sites and their manipulation of the facts in order to support a political agenda.
I dont particularly mind responding to sources like American Center for Voting Rights or JunkScience.Com. Its easy to refute the bullshit that is spread.
|
dc_dux, I hoped discussing this problem here would lead to a way to progress from the tendency on this forum to assume (by the person posting) all information posted and linked from pages on other sites, rises to a level, merely because it is posted, where it becomes part of a supporting argument, worthy of the time and effort it takes to challenge it.
You're right, it is easy to refute bullshit, but it takes up time and space in a post. When I see it, I'm influenced to throw as much at it as I can muster. I've hoped that responding this way would have a settling effect, or at least create a climate where a regular poster here would be embarrassed to link something from worldnetdaily as a sole supporting source.
If someone began a new thread in TFP politics with an OP founded on an article linked from
www.ufomag.com , claiming evidence has been uncovered that one of the 2008 presidential race front runners is an extraterrestrial, would those who objected be put through the same exercise of "ignoring the source" and challenging the specifics in the article, as we are asked to do, again and again, in response to the examples like the ones in the OP?
Can we progress here by mutually agreeing that posting from worldnetdaily as a sole citation, and posting solely from sources fronting themselves as non-partisan, but are EXPOSED as partisan and compromised as American Center for Voting Rights, has been exposed to be, is to be treated as if nothing was posted, or must we ignore the source and challenge the specifics, something we would not be doing in response to a single source article linked from
www.ufomag.com , (I hope ?)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JinnKai
host, I'm not "sure" you know what "quotes" are for. "Quotation marks" are used when you're "directly" quoting someone, not when you're trying to "emphasize" something. It's really "distracting", because it makes it seem like you're actually "quoting" something.....
...did not need to be quoted. "American Center for Voting Rights" is barely legitimate. It is a title, but it could be quoted provided it it referenced in another document. "Non-partisan source" could've been quoted, but not individually. As a general rule of thumb, you should never quote single words.
I wouldn't ordinarily nitpick this, but I had trouble reading it because of your usage of quotation marks. I ran it through a program that removed quotation marks, and it was actually quite an improvement; I was able to read through the entire thing.
|
If it is a grievous enough error to influence you to post an OT criticism, shouldn't the criticism be about an error that is "cut and dry"? In this case, it isn't:
Your criticism amounts to a personal irritant. I had no way of knowing. I'll admit that my usage of quotation marks is habitual, but it is certainly not unorthodox, or improper.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ottopilot
........For me, I'd prefer reading an OP presented with something like a brief statement, followed by opinions (supported by references - linked or cited), a summary/conclusion, then perhaps add questions to help kick-start the discussion. If clarification is needed, most are capable of asking or looking things up.
|
I know of no other way of conveying the portions of an article or other third party information supporting a point I am posting about, than to "cut and paste" those portions, accompanied by a link. Even being that specific, I am impressed by how limited my success is in persuading anyone of anything deviating from what they already knew, before reading my post.
Time and again, we experience that most may be capable, but that they do not look things up. They post reactions, assuming that the subject of discussion is worthy of discussion, when, too many times, a quick search yields other information that clearly demonstrates that a subject does not merit discussion .