It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who else is tired of this?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 06:57 PM
link   
From another thread...


Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by soficrow
Our soldiers are left without armor or air cover, and their families live on food stamps.


Links (as in multiple verified sources, not just one) to verified sources substantiating this assertion, soficrow. I may have missed it/them.


Personally I'm tired of having my "sources" questioned every time I try to make a point and I'm tired of seeing other people do it to others for reasons of metal laziness or partisan/biased intention.

I try to do a little something called learning and therefore things stay in my little brain without having to keep a filing cabinet full of bits of branded information.

When you have read enough about a subject, you can discuss it and analyse it without having to look up every "source". You become the source of thinking on that topic.

Who else is tired of this kind of thing? ... or am I being unreasonable?

For the record my reply on that thread was basically
do your own research!

.




posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Hrm.

So whereupon the standard here is to provide sources to back up claims one makes, and has been the standard as long as I've been a member,
you think we should stop that immediately and believe every baseless claim bandied about?

That's about as far from "denying ignorance" as I've ever heard.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This kind of thing happens all over the board with everyone at some point Gools. We all make assertions at one time or another and don't provide sources for them. If anyone can ever say they've provided sources for every single point they've made, they'd be lying, or all their posts would be a half page long.

The simplest way to handle this is to simply provide the sources.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I am under the belief that the maker of any given thread is bound by courtesy, to provide the 'backing up' information. many others also will contribute to adding links and so forth out of kindness and the spirit of comunity. I have been the recipient of such generosity in some of my own threads and I am gratefull.

I do think it gets a little out of hand at times when a thread maker is BOMBARDED with demands for PROOF, especially when they are posting in a "predictions" thread.......or they are speaking about a personal experiance that has no way of being PROVED beyond the word of the writer.

However I do believe its up to the thread maker to provide the links supporting the claims that they make. I may be wrong here, but I think that is part and parcle of the ATS rules.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Personally I'm tired of having my "sources" questioned every time I try to make a point and I'm tired of seeing other people do it to others for reasons of metal laziness or partisan/biased intention.


If you think it is too much work to prove that what you said has some credibility behind it, then don't say anthing.

Besides you can say anything you want, but if you want people to listen to you and think about it you better prove that what you said is right or show that some has proved that what you said is right.

If what you say is backed by real sources, then you will have no trouble finding it again.

Sometimes it can get on your nerve, but the real fun is when you prove that you are right and the other moron is wrong and that can be done by providing credible sources, only.

Surf



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Calm down Gools I have done it too, I have told others to do their own research, but I have also learned that you need to do it all by your self.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
lol Do people really demand proof on predictions threads? Never go there, but if they do, that's hilarious.

Some statements need proof. There are a few members who think their word is golden and post some incredibly wacky things. Then, when asked for proof they get angry or say they can't disclose their source because they'd be killed, but there really is a believable source from [insert government agency name here].

The ones I love are the ones where people detail the grey's, reptoid's, or other alien's home world and system of government. I really do enjoy those.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by theRiverGoddess
I am under the belief that the maker of any given thread is bound by courtesy, to provide the 'backing up' information. many others also will contribute to adding links and so forth out of kindness and the spirit of comunity. I have been the recipient of such generosity in some of my own threads and I am gratefull.


I agree and I too have participated in these exchanges. You also eloquently restated the point I was trying to make.

The assertion in question from that thread was made as part of a much larger context and was clearly a figurative statement.

It may not have been a "bombardment" but it's an example of when NOT to do it. It adds nothing and makes a demand of the original poster.
.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Banshee
So whereupon the standard here is to provide sources to back up claims one makes, and has been the standard as long as I've been a member,
you think we should stop that immediately and believe every baseless claim bandied about?




On the other hand, the author may have posted links to sources and to substantiated facts several times over, when a person who is not as widely researched (or, heaven forbid, someone who knows that they have seen the links and substantiated facts before but decides that they will apply selective memory syndrome) asks for the sources again as if they are in an information vacuum.

The issue is not always one of unsubstantiated facts. The issue is that ATS recycles information over and over and over and invites people who have not done background research (or people in the second category above) to participate in the same discussions with people who have done the background research and who may have posted the links and original sources several times over.

The current search engines (both of them) are not entirely user friendly, don't always deliver expected results, and are not necessarily encouraging users to look for what may have been said on the subject matter at ATS before. What proportion of ATS members actually use the search engines?

Part of the recipe for the kind of frustration being pointed to in this topic. Solution?



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
It may not have been a "bombardment" but it's an example of when NOT to do it. It adds nothing and makes a demand of the original poster.


Yet the perfect example of WHEN to do it is illustrated in your first post in this thread.
A news thread, made by a reporter, DEMANDS factual and reliable sources to back up said news.

So while one can't really link to CNN when talking about a ghost they believe they have in their house,
they damn well better in threads claiming to be based on fact.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Well, I've studied and thought a lot about the structure of arguments and the tactics people use to prove they are right. Think of the argument as a wall, and there is a small crack in it. By whiddling away at the crack, the person against the argument can hope to prove the entire argument incorrect.

So, for example, if the original statement was exaggerated, the extrapolation that the entire argument is wrong would be the intended result. But hopefully, posters around here are smart enough to read between the lines or cracks.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I'd like to see the 2 word minimum go away in the search. More often than not, my second word is "is" or "the".



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
When you have read enough about a subject, you can discuss it and analyse it without having to look up every "source". You become the source of thinking on that topic.


As this maybe true. Just because YOU say it dosent make it any diffrent that any others saing it.

It nice to have something to back it up so others can reads it and can become the source.

I could be studing something for 20 years, Know exactly how it works, I cant teach someone else, without a reference. Hence history books.

[edit on 6-2-2005 by SpittinCobra]



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Actually MaskAvatar I have a great program that gathers so much information about 12 search engines at the same time that it takes time to look at all of them.

I do used my program all the time.


They have a free version of it for anybody interested is call Copernic, I have the profesional version. You are welcome to download the free one.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
Well, I've studied and thought a lot about the structure of arguments and the tactics people use to prove they are right. Think of the argument as a wall, and there is a small crack in it. By whiddling away at the crack, the person against the argument can hope to prove the entire argument incorrect.

So, for example, if the original statement was exaggerated, the extrapolation that the entire argument is wrong would be the intended result. But hopefully, posters around here are smart enough to read between the lines or cracks.


There is actually a thread that discusses arguing tactics used here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The issue is not always one of unsubstantiated facts. The issue is that ATS recycles information over and over and over and invites people who have not done background research (or people in the second category above) to participate in the same discussions with people who have done the background research and who may have posted the links and original sources several times over.


This is also a good aspect of the point I'm trying to make. Always having to go back to square one because some people are either lazy or willfully blind.


Originally posted by Jamuhn
By whiddling away at the crack, the person against the argument can hope to prove the entire argument incorrect.

So, for example, if the original statement was exaggerated, the extrapolation that the entire argument is wrong would be the intended result.


Exactly what goes on a lot around here. We have a lot of professional "argumenters" who only seek to blast holes into other people by nit-picking points in the hopes of winning some kind of ego game. You know… like lawyers.



But hopefully, posters around here are smart enough to read between the lines or cracks.


Agreed.
.



posted on Feb, 6 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
They have a free version of it for anybody interested is call Copernic, I have the profesional version. You are welcome to download the free one.



Copernic is a great search engine.


Sorry no "source" for that


And don't worry Marge I'm calmer now.
.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
For the record my reply on that thread was basically
do your own research!


If you say the sky is blue and someone wants a link to verify it, it's ridiculous; but in the context of that discussion if someone makes a claim that may or may not be true and is asked to back it up, they should. The reader shouldn't have to go do research to prove that a claim is true - professors don't give very good grades for people that tell them "you have fingers, look it up". Man I wish it worked that way, it would be much easier, huh?


At the crux of the matter is that wild-ass claims are made way too freakin often and taken as gospel truth by the people that want to believe that they're true. That in my mind is not a good thing. If I were to say, slip into an ATSNN story that in 1973 the President was arrested for molesting young boys but it was swept under the rug, a large number of the ATS membership wouldn't bat an eyelid and more likely accept it as quite a likely possibility. That's obviously fiction, but we all know that more outlandish claims have been made - as I recall the President is a bi-sexual, Satan worshipper - and taken with quite a bit of credibility by some.

And obviously wild-ass claims are what most conspiracy theorists make - that just gives us even less room for error and more accountability for what we say. That's if we want to be taken at least somewhat seriously.

[edit on (2/7/0505 by PistolPete]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by PistolPete

The reader shouldn't have to go do research to prove that a claim is true -
[edit on (2/7/0505 by PistolPete]


What about to prove a claim is false? ....or is that the same thing?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:25 AM
link   
Most people do not want to take someone else's' word for it that they "know" something is true. That's ridiculous! Anyone can say they know anything, doesn't mean they do.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join