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.

 

OK, I Know...

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
This has been mentioned before...

But really guys, the idea of posting a thread is as much to discuss the basic premise of the thread or source rather than discuss the source itself.

We can all spend days and days going around in circles discussing whose source is better or more reliable, but at the end of the day that accomplishes exactly nothing.

IMO it's better to discuss the idea that the source raises rather than the source itself.

Discussing the source to the detriment of the thread is one of the troll tricks we all hate.

It's pointless and it serves little purpose other than to highlight that someone doesn't like the basic premise and wants to steer the discussion away from said premise.

WIKI is much derided, but is actually a very good source if cross referenced.

MSM can be a good source if cross referenced.

The National Enquirer can be a good source if cross referenced.

You get the idea.


What I'm saying is, why not discuss the topic rather than the source - because discussing the source smacks of derailment and disinfo attempts.

If we all do that, there will be less arguments and better discussions.

And more to the point, the REAL disinfo agents will be easier to spot.




posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by budski
What I'm saying is, why not discuss the topic rather than the source - because discussing the source smacks of derailment and disinfo attempts.


If a post comes up that is based upon a tainted or unreliable source...and that is cited as a factual premise for the OP, then it becomes fair game as well.

Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, and the two are not interchangeable.



posted on Oct, 28 2009 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by budski
What I'm saying is, why not discuss the topic rather than the source - because discussing the source smacks of derailment and disinfo attempts.


If a post comes up that is based upon a tainted or unreliable source...and that is cited as a factual premise for the OP, then it becomes fair game as well.

Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, and the two are not interchangeable.


Absolutely - but it shouldn't be the be all and end all, and nor should it detract from the basic premise if the source is used just for the purpose of discussion.

Because I am on a conspiracy/alternative site, the source matters less to me than the discussion of the idea.

If I want facts, I'll look up polls etc

If I want opinion about a particular premise I want to discuss it here without having to justify what is usually just an idea, or a theory.

When it's a theory, surely the source that is reporting that theory comes far down the pecking oreder of the discussion.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski
WIKI is much derided, but is actually a very good source if cross referenced.

MSM can be a good source if cross referenced.

The National Enquirer can be a good source if cross referenced.

You get the idea.


And there's the crux. Most people don't go through the trouble of cross referencing, and if you do... problem solved! Just use the cross reference as a source as well. There's nothing wrong with backing up a post with multiple sources, ESPECIALLY if your "main source" is The National Enquirer.


[edit on 10/29/09 by redmage]



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by budski


The National Enquirer can be a good source if cross referenced.



Oh god, you just HAVE to be British


That's like saying "Viz is a good source if cross referenced."



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Trying to find a relaible source on a conspiracy website?


Im with the OP on this one, the basic premise of the thread should be discussed and whoever wants to challenge the information presented should do their own research and present their findings.

What I see here is that people outright dismiss the information because they personally dont like the source and thats just ignorance at its finest.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunch
Trying to find a relaible source on a conspiracy website?


I see the irony, but the fact is that the reason this is not merely a gathering site for starry-eyed nutters is because you do have reasonable discourse and a regard for reliable sources.


Im with the OP on this one, the basic premise of the thread should be discussed and whoever wants to challenge the information presented should do their own research and present their findings.


Then you end up with dueling sources, exactly what you are decrying.


What I see here is that people outright dismiss the information because they personally dont like the source and thats just ignorance at its finest.


I disagree. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, like I said, and the key is not to confuse them. Source should not be the ONLY factor in the discussion but they remain important because many serve an agenda therefore they carry weight. I have had people present an absurd argument which they have based upon the Weekly World News. That alone ought to shut down any argument about whether or not BatBoy met with JFK.

I will agree that everything should get polite consideration, this being a conspiracy site and all, but I maintain that the integrity of sources is critical to the argument. Otherwise, we'd be completely mired in Bravo Sierra and anyone with half a brain would leave.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:58 AM
link   
I'm all for anything that moves a discussion forward. The sources are certainly game for vetting, I would think. However, someone posting "This is BS because it's from [whatever]" doesn't shed much light. If someone can include a refutation about the material, maybe with links to other sources, that's a plus.

The exception would be if the source was a known satire site like The Onion, and I've seen that happen.

Bottom line, we're all free to ignore whatever someone interjects into a thread if it's meaningless, trolling, or irrelevant. Don't feed the trolls.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:16 AM
link   
if you're presenting someone else's theory for discussion here, their motivations for writing and their past reliability is as important as their idea or opinion.

if you base your ideas on a very limited number of sources then establishing the credibility of the foundations is important.

you could always try to stick to reliable sources, if the story has a basis there'll be reliable sources, if there's no reliable source, the story is probably crap.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Very true. I don't mind the source being a part of the discussion or skepticism but when it becomes the focal point, it really does stink of deflection. Or when someone enters the thread and says nothing other than '[Insert Source here]
Yeah right.' They immediately tune out possibilities instead of at least giving the information a shot. Obvious exceptions apply like The Onion or Weekly World News.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


You got to understand that many people that post here on ATS already come with a preconceive idea, opinion or stance that they want to express. Thats why I said that if you dont like the information presented then challenge it from yout point of view but not dismissing the OP basic premise just becasue you dont like the source or the arguement presented.

Like another poster said it just reeks deflection, there is a difference between stating your opinion and stating facts, I think we can agree on that.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Many people do want to 'kill' the messenger, when the message is not to their liking or approval.

This is part of human nature. In many threads the poster often becomes as much a subject of the debate as the actual post does itself.

Often the debate on the poster completely over shadows the substance of the post.

Often this is deliberately done by people debating the poster as a means to deflect from and avoid having to formulate and present answers that they do not have to overcome the suppositions put forward in the post.

Keeping the argument which is what it then becomes an argument and not a debate, on the source of the supposition and the poster/messenger posting it becomes a convenient way to minimize the importance of the supposition or keep people from focusing on it when it purports something that offends someone's agenda or beliefs.

I myself don't know how to overcome this.

Please let me know if you stumble on a way!

Thanks.




top topics



 
1

log in

join