Originally posted by NJ Mooch
... better credibility when it comes to your background....
Fortunately we can rely on the deductive powers of a LARGE percentage of ATS members when it comes to question anothers credibility.
Placing too much value on status in the employment area is a very very dangerous way to go and could lead to an environment for deliberate misinfo
"There are no such things as Black Op programs involving trillions of dollars... I should know cuz I,m the President .." ..for instance..
I think the whole debating process establishes whether or not credibility is awarded.
For me personally,I look for signs like a basic knowledge of punktuashun/'.speling,
Timing of the posts after a tricky question during an online debate.. Ie, have they just ran off to google an answer they should know if they are who
they claim to be.
Coherence.. do they seem to randomly change subject mid-sentence from rocket science to .." Ooo look. there,s a dog outside hehe."
I also check out location in relation to knowledge presented in conjunction with their mastery of the English language.It speaks volumes.
I am constantly embarrassed buy Non-English speaking members presenting a well written and informative piece which is then replied to in 'txt speak'
and what seems to be deliberate derisery remarks.
It's a learning process but good practise for real life 'people situations too'
..Off Topic quick rant..
Using "Would of..." is a VERY FAST credibility destroyer.
It only sounds like 'OF' because of the shortened 'Would've'.... (VE),
"would have" ... 'have' being past tense
Now stop it.. You know who you are../RANT OFF
(Couldn't find Mech32's 'Would have' rant thread.