If we were to sit down and have a chat about what we talk about online, there would not be bickering about sources, you would just debate the ideas or statements.

If the thread starts out based on material from a website, book, movie et cetera i would understand the need and use of providing a link or citing a source because the debate relies on the material.
Otherwise it doesn't do much aside add a bit more credibility to your statements.

If anyone out there is like me, then they are only given a few minute intervals to use the computer (for leisure purposes) throughout the day, and cannot spend their time searching and submitting websites.
And what if there is no website but the source is a radio or television program, or even a conversation you witness?

If you are so concerned about the credibility or reference, spend your own time doing so, that way you can truly agree or discover it to be false.

If instead of creating an argument and you just cry 'source now infidel!' you've either lost the debate or need to take care of it with them personally or by yourself.

Anyway, just a thought ;)

Its a valid point and much of the reason i stay our of Politics and World History. Id have to do so so much research to be able to properlly debate anything. But to be fair, I have nothing against those who do and it clearly shows that they care enough to have learnt the lot beforehand.

Spartak being one of the recent ones who seemingly has the back catalogue of world history at his disposal. Ill stick to learning about religion and leave American politics to them. (this isnt to say I havent tried, or wont try again hehe)

hehe, i would gladly welcome world politics or UK political scene, i've even caught myself watching Parliament from time to time.

Spartak was just being too serious and unruly, that was a good post you made that he over criticized.

I suppose citing sources shows a knowledge base in the past on the subject, but i must say that i do not keep track of everything i read, watch, or hear, but thats just me ;)

It's always nice when people post an interesting link where a reader can perhaps learn something. It also serves to back up an opinion, in case others think you are just slinging pigslop.

On the other hand, if you have nothing to back up an outrageous claim, you can always say that the link is broken. HAHA.

Or, you might consider making up a title to a scholarly-sounding book in order to impress people.

Originally posted by Evakian
If instead of creating an argument and you just cry 'source now infidel!' you've either lost the debate or need to take care of it with them personally or by yourself.
Actually, that's false. To be properly accepted, material must be sourced, otherwise it doesn't count. A lot of times, we kind of ignore that around here because we're not actually trying to debate debate. But if asked for a source for some obscure fact one dug up, one must come up with a source otherwise the "fact" is not counted as factual.

There have been instances of people just pulling so called "facts" out of the air in a pitful attempt to make a point. Also when I first got here someone purposely changed something I wrote and tried to pass it off a a quote of mine. Not everyone on these boards has ethics. I think that is why people ask for a source.

a matter of ethics, hmm interesting

Originally posted by Evakian
If anyone out there is like me, then they are only given a few minute intervals to use the computer (for leisure purposes) throughout the day, and cannot spend their time searching and submitting websites.


You have been here for a little more than two weeks and you have at this posting, 493 posts. That doesn't seem to back up your claim that you have little time to use the computer. :)

On the topic of this thread, I'd have to say that opinions backed up by hard facts are usually more sound than those that are not, but obviously some subjects of discussion rely on opinion more than others....like this topic. :D

Originally posted by Vilepagan
You have been here for a little more than two weeks and you have at this posting, 493 posts. That doesn't seem to back up your claim that you have little time to use the computer. :)


hohoho hehehe true vp, i may post alot but im not at the comp for long intervals to gather info. when im off working it wouldnt be appreciated if i was busy researching non work subjects, and i would be badgered for doing so when the boss makes his runs to check up every 5 minutes :( . I wouldn't be on Allforums at all, but typing up a quick thread when i have nothing to do for the moment and checking up on it when i have more free time passes the time and fills the gaps.

That made me chuckle, excellent point

I see no problem with posting so called "facts", ex; this is the fastest car according to GM Ford Honda etc...

The problem is all the BS quotes that plug up the threads, ex, according to so and so from the bullsh** network blau blau blau. This gets on my nerves using someone elses opinion trying to make a fact. Just because Jimbob Joeblow from East Bumble f*** Egypt says gum is bad for you, this doesn't make it a fact.

one problem we have is peoples "proof" comes from clearly biased sites. I wuld never post something from rushlimbaugh.com, although it would be just as relevant as somethign from weeklyworldworker.com, but why bother? Our good friend overdose is famous for asking for proof then disregarding the proof as not good enough for his liking. "its from a right wing site" he says, then has no qualms when someone goes to international ANSWER to back up their agruments

Originally posted by Travh20
Our good friend overdose is famous for asking for proof then disregarding the proof as not good enough for his liking.
:@@: Sorry I don't believe Right-Wing bias sites, Trav...

alright then, you disregard his proof for being "biased" and i shall disregard yours for being "biased" as well. I'm just using your logic of not believing anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint

G'day

Originally posted by Evakian
alright then, you disregard his proof for being "biased" and i shall disregard yours for being "biased" as well. I'm just using your logic of not believing anyone who doesn't share your viewpoint

G'day
Maybe one should take each source on a case-by-case basis and examine the ideology behind the site rather than disregarding all links from a certain person.

Originally posted by Overdose
:@@: Sorry I don't believe Right-Wing bias sites, Trav...

yet you are perfectly fine with anything from michealmoore.com

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Maybe one should take each source on a case-by-case basis and examine the ideology behind the site rather than disregarding all links from a certain person.

Sounds great. Btw i do not exclude people's views, if i say that i merely use it to make a point/ and or joke.
If OD posts a site to back up a claim i will still read it.