|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 11, 2011 18:46:05 GMT -5
Yes, but at least they actually cite their damn sources. Even legit news networks can't seem to do that. Anonymous sources can be legit in some cases. I've used them. Those are not what I'm concerned about. I'm thinking more like where they talk about some survey or study, but never link to it or even say its title. |
|
|
|
Post by Wykked Wytch on Nov 11, 2011 19:37:13 GMT -5
I think there was a place (in the Netherlands, if I remember correctly) where there were no traffic laws except for "pedestrians get the right of way". There are fewer traffic accidents and deaths there than the rest of the country. It was in a video on YouTube somewhere, I'll have to go find it...
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 11, 2011 20:55:02 GMT -5
They can't be legitimate because they can't be traced. Simply being correct does not make you a legitimate source. Virtually all of Watergate reporting by the Post was anonymous. Wikileaks famously uses anonymous sources, where even they don't know the identities of their leakers. Obviously the public has to take the journalist at face value, which is to say they have to trust the journalist and the news organisation. In fact, the source has to trust the journo and the news organisation. |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Nov 11, 2011 20:56:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Nov 11, 2011 21:01:40 GMT -5
Yes, that is also a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 11, 2011 22:57:00 GMT -5
They can't be legitimate because they can't be traced. Simply being correct does not make you a legitimate source. Virtually all of Watergate reporting by the Post was anonymous. Wikileaks famously uses anonymous sources, where even they don't know the identities of their leakers. Obviously the public has to take the journalist at face value, which is to say they have to trust the journalist and the news organisation. In fact, the source has to trust the journo and the news organisation. Yeah, but sometimes its more fun to shrill "citation needed" at people making perfectly valid points in fields they are well informed about than it is to accept that other people may know more about some subjects than you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Nov 11, 2011 23:29:34 GMT -5
Virtually all of Watergate reporting by the Post was anonymous. Wikileaks famously uses anonymous sources, where even they don't know the identities of their leakers. Obviously the public has to take the journalist at face value, which is to say they have to trust the journalist and the news organisation. In fact, the source has to trust the journo and the news organisation. Yeah, but sometimes its more fun to shrill "citation needed" at people making perfectly valid points in fields they are well informed about than it is to accept that other people may know more about some subjects than you do. And it's even easier to dismiss someone else's argument simply because you believe that they know less than you do, so therefore you "know" they are wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 0:02:59 GMT -5
I'm not even arguing this ridiculous non-point. I refuse to believe that Tweedledee & Tweedledum here don't see how not supplying verifiable sources & being "taken at face value" is basically a free pass to make shit up or do half-assed research & never get called on it. Especially the one who expects someone to "prove" to him that 1+1=2.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 0:55:41 GMT -5
From someone who defends police planting drugs on innocent civilians, I am not surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Nov 12, 2011 1:51:06 GMT -5
It's go-time.
You can clearly see how what I said is relevent, it's talking about proof, & whether or not you are consistent in your beliefs about what needs to be proven--hint: You aren't.
Now, what does what YOU said have to do with citations? Yes, this is a direct question.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 2:17:03 GMT -5
It's go-time. You can clearly see how what I said is relevent, it's talking about proof, & whether or not you are consistent in your beliefs about what needs to be proven--hint: You aren't. Now, what does what YOU said have to do with citations? Yes, this is a direct question. Ask a direct question that parses with basic conventions of grammar and syntax and I'll answer it. |
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Nov 12, 2011 2:25:02 GMT -5
That made...no sense.
Ironbite-I know you're Australian but dude...that was plain english.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Nov 12, 2011 2:43:55 GMT -5
That made...no sense. Ironbite-I know you're Australian but dude...that was plain english. The individual words were, sure. |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Nov 12, 2011 2:48:19 GMT -5
From someone who defends police planting drugs on innocent civilians, I am not surprised. Wait wut? Um... 1. When/where did this incident of police planting drugs on innocent civilians happen? (not doubting that there might be a FEW crooked cops out there, but would'nt that be cleared up with a simple blood or urine analysis anyway? 2. Where did Lithp ever defend such actions from law enforcement?? Just curious... because that comment seemed to be a little... random for me... |
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Nov 12, 2011 3:00:57 GMT -5
From someone who defends police planting drugs on innocent civilians, I am not surprised. Wait wut? Um... 1. When/where did this incident of police planting drugs on innocent civilians happen? (not doubting that there might be a FEW crooked cops out there, but would'nt that be cleared up with a simple blood or urine analysis anyway? 2. Where did Lithp ever defend such actions from law enforcement?? Just curious... because that comment seemed to be a little... random for me... There was a thread a while back about New York (I think) cops planting drugs on innocent people in order to fulfil arrest quotas. As I recall Lithp was saying the problem was the system with the drug planting being more of a symptom than the core problem, which was of course interpreted to mean he was defending corrupt cops. That said, I only skimmed that thread so you should probably read it yourself if the topic interests you. Should be on the 2nd or 3rd page somewhere. |
|
