Did you have to write a multiple-reply post like this just to defend your point? God I hate threads like this. And all because I decided to defend
You Tube and Wikipedia, two of the greatest gifts to humanity.
Since you can't see their value, there is no way to convince you that they are so valuable so all I can do is draw out a sketch of you, which I am
doing. If you do the same with me, you'll find a curious young mind. What will we find in your case?
Originally posted by jdub297
It shows no such thing. I've been a researcher for probably longer than you've been alive. I know where and how to find reliable sources, with or
without "mass media."
That means nothing to me. A person can spend their whole life researching and have it mean nothing at the end of their life. Why do you say this as
if it is supposed to mean something? Most research props up paid asshead professors anyway. Are you tenured or just a citizen researcher at your
The point of the thread is not to avoid such sites, but to be careful. Maybe you missed the original post where I said:
"There is a reason that blogs cannot be used as "sources" for "Breaking News" submissions.
That is not the vibe you are giving off. There is very little "helpfulness" in your tone. More a tone of superiority.
Okay, I'm gonna have to keep you honest here: You did not just make a friendly post here asking us to be careful. That is a baldfaced lie. What
you are doing here is placing your weight against these two information portals, which actually have helped many many people more than you have ever
done. So do you see? You, personally, have helped a few people find truth (perhaps?) but that would pale in comparison to the effect YT and
Wikipedia have had on the human race, so how can you compete?
You are being a critic, and you are positioned here in defense of established (controlled) mass media and against emerging media forms.
I never vouched for Webster or Google, I identified them as paths to authority: "Webster's, et c. and Google can lead to more accurate
and more trustworthy authority."
If you are at ATS searching for authority, that places you in a very special group.
Let me see if I understand you: People who want to post about conspiracy subjects would have better luck quoting Webster and Google? I want to help
you find your greater authority, but maybe you're at the wrong site for that? Many people here find that "authority" often hides actual truth by
presenting half-truths and falsehood. Let's have that discussion if you want.
I make my living "separat[ing] wheat from chaff." My only agenda is accurate communication.
I don't see your statement here as being consistent. You are saying perhaps that the chaff/wheat ratio is higher on Google than Wikipedia? Please,
explain it to me.
You are reading way too much into things I never said, and missing the things I did. And assuming a lot that there is no basis for. That's not
Wrong, I am defending websites which are bigger and better than yu or whatever you think you know. Get it? These websites will teach us more than
you, ever, will. So I am defending them and their content against a world which is dissecting them, and which world includes so many "smart people"
of the past generations who don't have eyes (or hearts) to see.
There is a ton of truth in both YT and Wiki which was not available before Internet, so you must also logically now denigrate the
A truer non-sequitur there never was. One can criticze or compartmentalize internet content without discrediting the internet.
I will now explain what a non-sequitor is: It is when someone makes a completely unconnected statement. But I have not done that. I have connected
your feelings about YT and Wiki to your larger attitude about the Internet, and I have done so, correctly. A non-seq would be for me to accuse you of
something false or unconnected, but since YT and Wiki represent the Internet media, then what I am saying, is true. You then go on to say you aren't
a luddite, and that proves you see the validity of my "non-sequitor" here. I'm just calling you out in defense of YT and Wiki.
You now claim that you are not an enemy of the Internet, yet you have not ONCE in all the words you've typed here, described a better place to find
truth on the Internet. You claim to be telling youngsters "be careful" but that's not what you body of work and this thread is communicating, at
least to my ears (which could be faulty I guess).
I make no endorsements anywhere in here
You are making defamatory comments, repeatedly. That you are on your heels now makes the point because you've got no better user-created content
website to offer us. You are being critical of the two places where finally humans can communicate directly with one another. That tells me a
You are not "just being helpful" and that is clear because your post above whines about little kids who are enjoying and linking to both sites in
their quest for truth. Let me be clear: You are not allowed to blame the young, the Internet or anyone else for what value you personally fail to
find on You Tube or Wikipedia.
Please understand there is nobody who needs to be advised or protected from these sites.
They are user created and as such, they are a
completely wholly new thing, even though you seem to unable to grasp that. They are unique, amazing, and in their infancy still.
If you could actually produce a video or maybe contribute to one of the thousands of Wiki's out there, you could stay aware and keep pace with the