Originally posted by cma
Is that good? So you mean I am getting better at this forum thing? Anyways you can see a good source at www.economist.com and do a search for 50/50.
FYI: I wrote this article on MY own. All sources are direct but not plajurized from.
No, I mean give us your sources for coming to the conclusions you came to. If you read any scientific book, they end with all their sources. Often
times 3 or 4 pages of them. Though they may present a phenomenal take on an issue I already know, I still like to check their sources. If their
sources are dubious or not even there, I question the results no matter how much I want to believe them.
I'm asking you to do the same. Though I may agree or disagree with your take on an issue, it would be very helpful if you stated the sources where
you came to the conclusion you came to. ATS has some very educated people reading it. If you read through sources and come to an opinion, no one will
believe you until you state where the information came from that caused you to come to the conclusion you did. That was why Banshee closed the thread
you started about a corporate republic being developed (which I believe is taking place). You wouldn't disclose where you got the information that
caused you to believe what you do.
The post I made that you percieved as a threat was made to make you aware of this in a round-a-bout way. You need to present to the ATS crew
corroborating evidence that your opinion is based on fact, not paranoia, or no one will believe you. We don't know you, so therefore we don't trust
you. If you give us evidence to
trust you, it might be easier to present a viewpoint in the future. TheNeo and Pupp just expected us to believe
them at their word, and they got banned because of this.
To put it in a real world perspective, if Robert Byrd, the guy who was in the KKK and then became the main guy for the democratic party, were to tell
you that african-americans were descendants to neandrathols(sp?) not cromagnun(sp?), with no evidence or other sources corroborating him, would you
believe him? You don't know him personally, so you have no reason to trust him. The same situation is here. We don't know you, so why should we
trust your ideas. You need to give corroborating evidence. As I stated in my scientific theories becoming law thread, I was going to find a .gov site
that corroborated my claim. I didn't say website, I said a .gov site to prove my law claim. Any other site will be in question. And I'm a person who
has been here a while. I'm a person, at least in my mind, whose opinion is fairly respected. I still need to present evidence. No one will take my
take on the law at face value, and rightly so. If a moderator came and said "this is the fact, and there's no refuting it" with no evidence, I
would question them, too. As many here at ATS would. That's what makes ATS so great, you need evidence to back up every claim.
So no, that wasn't good, because you didn't present any sources. If you give us reason to believe where you're coming from, it changes from an
emotional issue to a factual issue. And that kind of issue is where you get people changing their minds.