todays observation : the almighty "LINK"

[Two Thumbs]

Taste great or less filling?

 

[Ringel05]

Stink?

 

[konradv]

What is the point of providing a link to a suposed fact?

A thread is started and the OP makes a statement or observation. The responder asks for a link to back up the OP's claim. The OP then provides one. The responder than not only disputes the OP but then also attacks the link. The link is not a credible source as it is from a news agency not recognized by the responder. The link is not credible due to partisan athorship. The link is not credible because because another link has been found that disputes the original link. The link is not believed because the responder just doesn't like what the link has to say. So the OP has spent all this time searching the web to find a link that no one will believe anyway. Links = waste of time.

I don't base my usage on what others may think of the link. I try to find one as unbiased as possible and let the chips fall where they may. Those that chose to attack the link are usually doing so, because they don't really know the subject and will accept anything that fits their bias as gospel. The way to deal with those types is to ignore them or ridicule them. Trying to argue with them is a bigger waste of time than providing links.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Stink?

Sock?

 

[MeBelle]

What is the point of providing a link to a suposed fact?

A thread is started and the OP makes a statement or observation. The responder asks for a link to back up the OP's claim. The OP then provides one. The responder than not only disputes the OP but then also attacks the link. The link is not a credible source as it is from a news agency not recognized by the responder. The link is not credible due to partisan athorship. The link is not credible because because another link has been found that disputes the original link. The link is not believed because the responder just doesn't like what the link has to say. So the OP has spent all this time searching the web to find a link that no one will believe anyway. Links = waste of time.

agree / disagree

I do not agree that sources are a waste of time. And there is nothing wrong with having facts. If we didn't use our resources, I could have taught you the sky was yellow, not have to back up my claim, and you would have flunked that test.
When two sources refute each other, then we have a problem.

When two sources refute each other you don't have a problem, you have an opportunity to make an informed decision. Just 'cause there's work involved doesn't make it a problem. The best opinions I have came from, or with, refuted information.

Best example off the top of my head: Religion.

Allow me to elaborate...
By 'problem' I meant that's when the debating um-mm begins.