Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladesman87
It's this kind of reading comprehension that leads to posting graphics like that in the first place.
Give me a break. Reading comprehension my ass. You don't think we could reasonably argue about whether or not providing a cite for most of their terror events makes the source legit or not? Of course we could reasonably discuss that. But you go straight to "reading comprehension." I didn't have the source, as I very clearly pointed out.
Are you saying that to be a legit source, the source has to provide a cite to every event? Does the NYT do that? WaPo? No, they don't. We have a rule about providing a source when asked, or backing off, but that is not a rule about the source of every source.
"Reading comprehension?" Bull ****. That tells me you did not actually want to have a conversation, but rather, just attempted to call your opponent stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by well named
This is the more serious objection in my estimation:
I have no objection to people posting actual legitimate data, but not obvious misinformation.
Agreed, that that is a good objection. I would have thought it would be a discussion worth having. Maybe not, I didn't have the source at the time.