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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 06:39 AM
link   
Gool,

Maybe the problem is that there are certain members that tend to come to threads and state things as fact - and do it over and over and over, with NO support. This is very aggravating. These statements tend to come in the form of:

Well, Bush and his Kabal connections along with the Zionists already have half the population addicted to fruit loops and are planning to cut the whole supply off! *
*.

I'm sorry - but it gets really really old.

Let's review the statement about army families on food stamps:

You can repeat what I did - here: www.ngaaz.org...

Enter the following:



please note that I have selected the lowest rank available. I have also selected it to be with one child at home.

Here are the results:



Just so everybody can get straight how wrong this statement is - the resulting pay is OVER TWO TIMES TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR FOODSTAMPS in the Fort Hood area.

Sorry, but the statement was wrong....and this example assumes the wife is not working.

[edit on 2-7-2005 by Valhall]




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   
gools says:

"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."

Well, gools, you don't have to provide any sources when you make an assertion, and, even if it's a wild assertion, there are people who will believe you.

But I certainly won't be one of them!

Now, if you're saying that something is your opinion, of course, I won't ask for your backup; opinions have no factual backup, (although they may be based on faulty evidence).

But when you quote a fact that is simply wrong, then people who really believe in the goals of this board (deny ignorance) -- rather than just paying lip service to it -- will probably be on you like stink on a skunk.

Here's an example. Yesterday, on another thread, some poster casually said that the defense budget was a majority of the US government budget. I spent three minutes going to the Office of Management and Budget website, and downloaded information showing that the total Defense expenditures were 18.8 percent of the National Budget and that welfare and entitlement programs were three and a quarter times as much as the defense expenditures. This, of course, is denying ignorance, and it is what we on this forum are supposed to be doing.

Unfortunately, this individual was telling everyone else on the thread something they wanted to believe, so, although they couldn't defend his laziness (although they tried) they also never took the time to check this assertion out or even ask the original poster where he got his numbers.

The bottom line was the the poster wasn't denying ignorance, he was perpetuating it; and the rest of the people on the thread, by their inaction and attempts to defend something that was simply wrong, were also perpetuating ignorance.

Finally, another poster on this thread says that she tells people who attempt to deny ignorance to "do their own research". That's a pretty transparent comment to me; it means she has been guessing and is not honest enough to back up her "facts" with any sort of evidence after all.

I gues the bottom line, Gools, is whether you believe that ignorance is a good thing, or if you want to fight it with the truth.

Your call, of course.

[edit on 7-2-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
Just so everybody can get straight how wrong this statement is - the resulting pay is OVER TWO TIMES TOO MUCH TO QUALIFY FOR FOODSTAMPS in the Fort Hood area.
\

Do you have any sources for this or should we just take your word for it?



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
No, jamuhn, please don't take anybody's word for anything.

www.dhs.state.tx.us...

Maximum net income for a family of 3 is

ding ding ding

$1,306.




posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I would feel so inclined to argue with you about food stamp programs nationwide and the different pays of soldiers, but I think that was a perfect example of how to do things. YAY!



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
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!

.








I know this is all very teadious ,but that is how it is, I think people should also try to look things up to , but as you make a statement you have some obligation to provide if anything a link or very minimal directions to the information you are guoting, I don't like it either , but I have an understanding of the purpose and I know it is for the best. Just try to be patient, As for me when I question something and proof is not given I dont raise a fuss I just look it up myself and if I find the case to be untrue or flawed, I get the info come back and provide evidence , I don't require the person talking to me to do it because part of the learning process to me is the search for knowledge.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Kind of off topic but I was stationed at Ft. Hood, and yes, there were soldiers on WIC. Why? Car payments, bills, too many kids, I don't know, I just know it happens sometimes unfortunately. Sorry I don't have a source!



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Kind of off topic but I was stationed at Ft. Hood, and yes, there were soldiers on WIC. Why? Car payments, bills, too many kids, I don't know, I just know it happens sometimes unfortunately. Sorry I don't have a source!


WIC is not foodstamps. But it is a good program! One this Republican supports!



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
Kind of off topic but I was stationed at Ft. Hood, and yes, there were soldiers on WIC. Why? Car payments, bills, too many kids, I don't know, I just know it happens sometimes unfortunately. Sorry I don't have a source!




They get 25% off apartments , reduced cost for cars and other benefits for providing their military ID here in my area so the valid question is why do they need WIC , but again as you said that is off topic so I will let it go I just thought this was a good point



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
So does this new found revelation that there was a wrong-choice of words detract anything from the argument as a whole? Or is this simply a word of revision in case of publication? Maybe we need some editors for this kind of thing on ATS.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
WIC is not foodstamps. But it is a good program! One this Republican supports!





This is true it is usually stables substitute IE it contains vouchers for

A bag of beans, A gallon of Milk,A box of cereal, A portion of cheese, A set of baby foods or formula , and usually ends at the childs 5th year, and once the child is 5 and older does not get issued again, also most counties and tribes pay for this as well as the private organizations out there.

This is not ongoing state level care for low income persons , but just an emergency stop gap for those who dont qualify for Food Stamps because they make to much money but yet dont make enough to provide for their needs fully, That's why the products are limited to a short list of Items and not the open shoping like as in Food Stamps.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn
So does this new found revelation that there was a wrong-choice of words detract anything from the argument as a whole? Or is this simply a word of revision in case of publication? Maybe we need some editors for this kind of thing on ATS.


Oh no! don't try that move jamuhn. This wasn't a "wrong word". It was a false statement.

And by the way - based on an E1 salary as in my post above....

They don't qualify for WIC either:

www.fns.usda.gov...

Family of 3 max monthly GROSS income: ding ding ding $2,416.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I too get pestered by people constantly asking me to support what I say with a link here or a link there....

When I'm directly quoting someone, or feel it's necessary for me to factually support something, I'll throw in a link to the source...If someone U2U's me asking where I got the info from and I just got sloppy and didn't cite it, I'll point you in the right direction....

But making someone confirm what is an accepted fact, that you have regurgitated into your own opinion is useless to me.....I say that if something I've said irritates you so much, or makes you question my, or your logic, then it's your own duty to go out there and find the information....

I have no purpose to lie on ATS....And if I do, I'll even let ya know with a healthy dabble of [sarcasm]...

Example....If you're in a thread discussing evolution....one side is Darwinism and one side is Creationist....I would consider it acceptable to provide links to a group of people with the opposite mindset of my own....

But if it's a bunch of Darwinists in a thread beating themselves up over the same evidence, and one comes up with something no one else has heard of...it should drive those people not to ask for a link, but for them to find it for themselves....that's the only true way someone will appreciate their acceptance of knew knowledge...

A professor will suggest a few books for a paper topic...but then he'll tell you that you can't cite them in your biblio b/c he only wants you to use them for a background....all the other information, you have to find on your own....You have to take that time to find the books, sit down, read them and digest what you will of it....

Maybe that's a different atmosphere than the WWW....but as I see it, they're one and the same...and you're still the one in charge of how much you choose to take away from your online experience...not the person with whom who disagree with or can't quite believe just yet....



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:06 AM
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.


Well said, and generally true..

The DEMAND for supporting links usually only occurs when the poster makes some kind of outrageous claim and then states it as if it were FACT not opinion or theory. When stating something as a FACT, yes it is common courtesy to at least provide a source.

Granted, many here are amateur experts in their favorite field. Hell, I could rattle off a ton of info on UFOs. But, I'll state such as an idea, or that I believe it to be true, and not state it as fact unless I provide a source. Imho, it's perfectly legit to ask for a source if someone is trying to state something as FACT.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
You know Valhall in all the years my husband was in the services, we never qualify for anything.

And his pay back then was a lot less.

Occurs when we got married he had already 4 years in the services.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
This wasn't a "wrong word". It was a false statement.


How is this a wrong word when soldiers are actually on these programs? By the way, look at what check boxes you selected. Not all the soldiers are currently fighting in Iraq.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jamuhn

How is this a wrong word when soldiers are actually on these programs? By the way, look at what check boxes you selected. Not all the soldiers are currently fighting in Iraq.


Then soficrow's statements most definitely should not be applied to those soldiers. You see, THAT would truly be skewing reality. If a soldier is stateside, then he should be treated like anyone else who qualifies for these programs (that or his little lady needs to get out of the house and earn a second income like a lot of other lower income families have to do! - YOU MAKE YOUR CHOICES!) - also, those soldiers who are overseas and not getting hazardous duty/hostile fire pay increases, by definition, couldn't be shorted on the alleged "armor shortage argument"...the entire statement was proffered in a manner that combined "neglecting both the soldier's needs and his family's"....and the long and short of it is, it has been proven that seekerof had every right to ask where the support for the statement was....probably because he had doubted the veracity of the statement and was giving soficrow the benefit of the doubt, and the opportunity, to change his (seekerof's) mind.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I would agree that it did skew reality as I said previously, but your premise that it was an entirely false statement is also skewing reality, which was my point. Plus, I never disagreed with Seekerof's seeking to find a source. But anyway, whatever...



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I agree with the original complaint... having to prove over and over again. Now, usually, it is justifies... why start a thread with nothing to back up your side? But, on the flip side, you have those few people who constantly belittle the theories or ideas by their "where's the proof".

In my threads, I have had my fair share of these, and I have always given links and refrences, with the added insult of "I've proven MY point, now prove yours!" More often then not, though, the accuser doesn't respond anymore.

So I take those comments knowing that they are made by empty shallow individuals who strive to be at the center of attention..

Then, too, are those who swear up and down that the evidence I gave to suport myself is false, or it was debunked. Yet those same people still don't provide their links!

So how about this, to all those who say "prove it"... Provide YOUR evidence, too. A great thing about this site is the ability to communicate and to learn from each other, and debating is an essential part of that. By not supporting your claims, you just make yourself appear as an idiot.

Anyway, yeah... I am sick of having to prove myself, but only to those who don't believe the proof or give their own counter-point.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Just saw this brilliant quote on another thread:


Originally posted by p a v e l
I don't see a purpose in posting a topic here where the subject cannot be proved or disproved.

There wouldn't be much to discuss really would there. God, aliens, ufos, planet x, 9/11, psychic ability its all going to be banned


Oh, and here's my source for that quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join