Zone1 The Value of Links?

[DudleySmith]

ep, it is only us old folks that expect people to be label to support their claims, people like you just want to be able to post anything and everything and never back up a damn fucking thing.

Mostly that is because people like you never bother to do your own homework before jumping into threads and demanding everybody else waste their time educating you ignorant asses. Guess what? Nobody else is responsible for educating you.

 

[DudleySmith]

Your words have a good ring to them. Sometimes, sources we trust make mistakes. In the case of the Steele Dossier, it started an irreversible source of error that only a handful of people knew about. Its effect on politics divided many debates that laid a groundwork for ending prosperity. It also validated David Horowitz's buried works of journalism like nothing else could have. The kicker is that Mr. Horowitz's books offended half the people who read them due to politics. Even so, he had the courage to continue on even if half the world hated him. To this day, I have no idea what he could have done differently, but he knew fully he would stand by his truth when some influential people were outraged. I'm not elaborating further, because I doubt that it would not be convenient for people to search for his books that were stopped being published more or less 20 years ago.

The best way to handle these trolls is to cite from books. lol that always throws them off, since they don't read anything outside of their website echo chambers.

 

[miketx]

i always have back up to what i say with unbiased credible verifiable links based on what universities will accept as sources in research papers.

& i so love it when i can shut someone up with true factual facts that are truthful.

I know you do, and here's the link to prove it.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This is also one of the reasons I often ask for links, I want to see the source. When people refuse it is often due to them being embarrassed by the source, thus what they posted can be dismissed.



Politics was hugely divided long before the Steele Dossier, and as far as ending prosperity, sorry you are suffering, but we have never done better. It is best to not let politics determine your prosperity

Ah, The Steel Dossier. There were lots of links to the Steel Dossier posted by you leftists.

How did that turn out?

 

[beautress]

This is also one of the reasons I often ask for links, I want to see the source. When people refuse it is often due to them being embarrassed by the source, thus what they posted can be dismissed.



Politics was hugely divided long before the Steele Dossier, and as far as ending prosperity, sorry you are suffering, but we have never done better. It is best to not let politics determine your prosperity

I've asked for links as well. However, if they don't furnish them, I couldn't read their minds as to why no link was furnished, because I'm so not psychic. Links on the internet are what they are anyhow if you really think about it. As a matter of fact, I couldn't find validation as to whether I could trust other internet sites. And even though I consulted Pew Research Center on the issue, they had a lot of information, but not anything close on how reliable sources might or might not be: Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet
Apparently, not as many people as us are concerned whether the source of the link is accurate or not, because possibly, politics has an element of liking or not liking what we are reading. But going back to the Steele Dossier, which was likely written to get a gut level anger toward its target for a political reason of eliminating the competition, I wasn't sure when I first read it that the salacious part was a truly horrifying piece of work, and I didn't know whether it was true or not for a few days. It was also availed to members of Congress, and it created an intellectual division in both liberal and conservative parties. Some thought "this is too good to be true." Others thought "this does not ring true about the target of the conversation this dossier pounces all over." The only thing in common the dossier resulted in was chaotic confusion, which is consistent with the Alinsky steps to make changes in attitudes about governmental power. It was not consistent with Constitutional recommendations, however. Others could have analyzed it in a different way than me, due to their level of an ability to determine based on knowledge of political methods. So while I appreciate links that are informative, there are also links as questionable as the melee created by the Steele Dossier in American politics. What can I say, but "heaven, help us."

 

[Pellinore]

I don't post here as much as others, but I'm more than happy to include links for most of my posts, and I will almost always run them through mediabiasfactcheck.com and include a little byline below them, so others can see for themselves the source's potential bias and reliability. With a link to the MBFC page and type size set to 12, I also find it keeps me responsible for making sure I don't post questionable content. If something is Left, Right, or Extreme bias, or Mixed or lower Factual Reporting, I simply don't use it.
Source: Associated Press; Left-Center bias, High factual reporting.

I don't, however, have the time or desire to chase down links on facts that should be common knowledge. There have been times when I've included something like "For a source, try your tenth grade US Government textbook," and I'm sure there will be more to come.

Overall, though, yes, links are generally good for debates. Many of us also like to point out that the most reliable links come from sites that end in .edu, .gov, or .mil, and sometimes .org. Many .com links have reliable reputations and can be used with confidence, but many others do not, and cannot, because there's no limit to who can get a .com address and set up a blog in their basement. However, anyone who disputes a source from sites such as The Red Cross, NASA, the State Department, and so on is usually going to do their own credibility more harm than good.

 

[beautress]

This is also one of the reasons I often ask for links, I want to see the source. When people refuse it is often due to them being embarrassed by the source, thus what they posted can be dismissed.



Politics was hugely divided long before the Steele Dossier, and as far as ending prosperity, sorry you are suffering, but we have never done better. It is best to not let politics determine your prosperity

I'm not complaining about my "sufferings." I'm the widow of a husband who was wise in every way I wasn't, but he encouraged my strong points in art as I appreciated his astute wisdom in how the world works and his use of a celebrated sense of humor to get his crews to practice safety in the face of hazard, and literally save lives. He looked more like a movie star than the renaissance man in his soul.

 

[DudleySmith]

Ah, The Steel Dossier. There were lots of links to the Steel Dossier posted by you leftists.

How did that turn out?

It turned out it was Hillary colluding with the Russians, along with the FBI. lol

 

[DudleySmith]

I don't, however, have the time or desire to chase down links on facts that should be common knowledge.

^This.

 

[luiza]

A Link Is part of a Chain Used to Control the Public's Mind

Can or Might be . Not is .

 

[Dogmaphobe]

It turned out it was Hillary colluding with the Russians, along with the FBI. lol

..and the mindless proles ate up every bit.


Still are, most of them.

 

[playtime]

REALLY? I've never seen that once in over six years here! You're one of the least credible people here! Including the statement above!

lol ... sure.

 

[playtime]

Like Daily Kos and Huffpo, you say?

i can only speak for myself & don't use huffpo, daily kos, & the like... nor gateway pundit or brietbart.

if i can, i try to use aggregates & sources such as RUETERS & AP. occasionally i'll use a youtube from MSNBC, CNN, or FOX if a story has been reported widely across various news agencies. there's not much differance between NYT, WaPo, or the WSJ when it comes to reporting facts. the only difference lies within their OP/EDs.

 

[playtime]

We are mostly old. That's the problem.

speak for yerself, suzy Q

People here like Golfing Gator who demand links all the time are either ancient or purposely clogging up the works.

people who care about the TRUTH will provide links ( like i do ) or will have them ready when called out & are accused of making up BS. that's the best & i love it when i am called a liar & can stomp on a poster so easily.

Unless the information I'm presenting is quite obscure, links should not be required.

you mean like your CONspiratorial crap that you spew about vaccines? every time you try, i always shut you down by finding yer tall tale fantasies that are torn from whacky biased junk science people & web sites.

A microsecond internet search should verify for anyone.

lol ... bingo.

 

[candycorn]

We seem to place great value of "links" on this forum as if they represent some unbiased verification of factual events. In many cases they are far from reliable information. So why do we place "journalists" on such a pedestal of credibility? Do you consider them to be some sort of geniuses who are certified to instruct the masses? I certainly don't.

It seems to me that "Clean Debate" should primarily consist of a statement of proposed facts and logical conclusions. If any of these facts or conclusions are disputed, then contrary facts and logical conclusions should be stated with their objective sources if necessary. But referring to the mere opinions of others in order to bolster one's own arguments is an intellectual cop-out.

Improper foundation.

Links are not "mere opinions of others". "The Associated Press reports XYZ" is not an opinion.

 

[candycorn]

We are mostly old. That's the problem.

Demanding links is an old practice of the old internet, when having three or four tabs opened would crash everything and Googling would slow your connection.

People here like Golfing Gator who demand links all the time are either ancient or purposely clogging up the works. Unless the information I'm presenting is quite obscure, links should not be required. A microsecond internet search should verify for anyone.

This from the woman who thinks a vaccine taken by billions of people world wide was poison yet nobody was poisoned..she doesn't want to have to support her insane stance with links.

These vaccines are poison.

See how I did that?

 

[toobfreak]

lol ... sure.

Yep, sure. Just look at all of the responses and reactions to my post---- of the 5-6 people who reacted, everyone AGREED with me except YOU. That speaks volumes.

I wouldn't trust you to fill helium balloons at a carnival.

 

[SweetSue92]

This from the woman who thinks a vaccine taken by billions of people world wide was poison yet nobody was poisoned..she doesn't want to have to support her insane stance with links.


See how I did that?

How many boosters did you get, anyway?

Good luck with that spike protein swimming through your system. It's a bit of a Russian roulette with the blood clots, heart disease, and autoimmune problems. Right now, in my personal sphere, I know one CHILD hospitalized atm with serious blood clots in her brain and liver and a coworker who has POTS and other autoimmunes. Not to mention the two people who died when their cancer returned aggressively.

These vaccines are making people sick, you know it deep down, but will keep crying for "proof". I don't care. I did the right thing. Thank God my own kids only got suckered into two shots and no boosters.

 

[pknopp]

One can link to something that actually happened and then still state your opinion. Otherwise the post is generally something one simply made up and is stating as facts.

A good example of why verification of what happened is needed is a thread a couple days ago about how a rich person got their charges dropped. Without the link one might have seen that as factual. As it was, reasonable people were able to read the link and understand it was simply a temporary legal maneuver.

There are places to do that.

 

[easyt65]

I think with my own mind and don't need anybody else's.

What I have found is that the more a poster uses the word "we" to indicate their status as unquestioning prole, the more they link to endless opinion pieces.

I find the extremely left-leaning posters / members most ofyen demand links from those who.oppose their opinions while not providing any themselves and also ask for the same links over and over in the same thread or in others.

If a link is not given in response when demanded the left's tactic is to dismiss the opposing point as 'unfounded' or false.

In many cases if a link is provided the left's tactic is to attempt to discredit the source because of an inability to disprove what is being reported.