1
   

Do You Really Want to Read All That!?

 
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 06:49 am
Phoenix:

Perhaps it's my "blogging" background rearing it's head, but I like the "Link/Summary" approach best.

Unless I can't link easily to it (see "None Dare Call It Propaganda")
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:15 am
How about that. I generally read every post as someone else read it and found it worthy enough to post. I figure that they had a reason to do so.

I post many articles that I know most of would never read on your own. It's my way of introducing you to what I find interesting in the world of politics. How many of you would ever read Boortz if not for us righties?

I could post my opinion, but as just a naked post, it won't get much play and my opinion on many topics can be rather abrasive and I don't feel as though I have the proper vocabulary and patience to keep the debate at a certain level. So, if a topic interests me, I will hunt down an article that reflects my views and post it.
0 Replies
 
PDiddie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:32 am
I used to be the forum's worst at cut-and-paste without comment. ("Thank you, thank you, my mother thanks you...")

That was the frustrated journalist in me (as Joe Cocker was a frustrated guitarist :wink: ).

Cut-and-pasting entire articles is actually against copyright law (without the author's permission, of course); more than likely no one's going to get written up for it, so it is a simple act of professional courtesy to sample a bit (three paragraphs generally being the style limit) and then link to the source.

Some people cannot be bothered to click on a link, however, and as we all know many publishers move their resources into pay-per-view archives after awhile (or remove them altogether). So sometimes the point being made is lost to aging. Same with images. Craven's bandwidth expense doesn't allow cartoons and pictures to remain up forever.

I have been stretching my legs relative to the blogging phenomenon, and their style is to offer a take on the sampled article, sample it, and link it.

I try to make my posts fit entirely inside the viewing area of my 17-inch monitor also, so a reader theoretically wouldn't have to scroll to read it all.

These are all things I've learned over the course of spending time here and elsewhere.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 07:56 am
I much prefer to give my own viewpoint and back it up with other 'evidence' if challenged. But as I am usually challenged, and not always gently Smile, it became simpler to just post an article in the first place.

Sometimes I have posted an unusually long article when a registration was required to access a link or when it was new information and addressed a number of other threads.

But like most of the rest of you, I rarely read all of a long, tedious piece unless it is especially pertinent or gripping. But like McG, I think sometimes a published source will say something so well, it can't be improved on.

I think we would see a lot less tedious posting if there were fewer attacks/insults and more discussion. As most A2K members seem to be well educated and up on things, I think it is sometimes shortsighted to think a published opinion is always more authoritative than some of our own.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 08:01 am
Foxfyre and McG....often, many of the published opinions posted here are incredibly biased, and not worthy of discussion. However, I have indeed found some of McG's articles interesting.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 08:05 am
Perhaps most published opinions posted here are incredibly biased, Cav, but conviction requires bias.

A person can be biased in favor of a particular viewpoint that is based on both empirical and objective evidence, reason, and logic. Bias does not automatically equate with dishonesty or disingenuousness (is that a word?)
Bias is a problem only when it comes from bigotry and/or prejudice and/or intentionally omits valid information that would show an opinion to be flawed.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 10:52 am
You make this up as you go along, don't ya, Boss?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 10:55 am
You disagree Setanta? Enlighten us then oh wise one.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:01 am
Quote:
But like McG, I think sometimes a published source will say something so well, it can't be improved on.


I agree with this. Partly because I love good writing and exposition, and some folks do it delightfully well.

But also, my reading of some piece of exposition commonly misses a key element which another reader will help me perceive, and I find that very valuable.

But mostly I value the inclusion of outside sources because I really think what we ought to be up to here, along with our happy shouting, is education. And education comes through wrestling with new information and new ideas.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:17 am
Damn it Blatham, I hate it when you make me agree with you. Smile
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:28 am
Foxfyre wrote:
You disagree Setanta?


Most assuredly.

Quote:
Enlighten us then oh wise one.


This feeble attempt at snide humor is all the more ironic given your penchant for statements from authority. Often those statments are ludicrous in character:

Quote:
Perhaps most published opinions posted here are incredibly biased, Cav, . . .


Brava, you've actually used a qualifier--"perhaps." This is so uncommon an event in your posts, that i thought it appropriate to salute such a signal acheivement on your part.

Quote:
. . . but conviction requires bias.


This is a statement from authority, for which you provide no substantiation. Although conviction may lead to bias, and certainly seems to have done so in your case, it is not axiomatice that one who becomes convinced of something will be biased. In fact, having a bias as a result of conviction would mitigate against changing one's opinion because of the unlikelilhood of giving credence to that which contradicts one's conviction.

Quote:
A person can be biased in favor of a particular viewpoint that is based on both empirical and objective evidence, reason, and logic.


In fact, those who give their time to philosophical considerations and scientific research would flatly deny that such a statement is true. The entire purpose of empirical research and the objective consideration of evidence is to eliminate bias.

Quote:
Bias does not automatically equate with dishonesty or disingenuousness (is that a word?)


In fact, in refutation of this absurd contention, as well as the previous one, i offer the following definition from Princeton University: "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation."

Quote:
Bias is a problem only when it comes from bigotry and/or prejudice and/or intentionally omits valid information that would show an opinion to be flawed.


Refer once again to the Princeton University web site. That definition of bias specifically means the intentional omission of valid information that would show an opinion to be flawed.

I don't purport to be a fount of wisdom--that would serve, however, to very accurately define what you do from one post to the next, almost constantly. Therefore, given such a marked preference for statements from authority on your part, and the speed with which you respond to people by making such statements from authority, and finally, given that said statements are made without authority and are frequently very flawed statements--i thought it appropriate to inquire whether or not you make this up as you go along.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 11:56 am
In all due respect Mr. Setanta, I think you're dead wrong on most points. It seems you mostly criticize my certainty of my convictions and my attempts at humor. I will accept that. I notice you didn't qualify your opinions of me or my opinions, however.

My opinions/convictions on this subject come from education, hands on experience, research, observation, logic and reason. You're welcome to challenge them, but I will leave it to you to disprove them. And I will define what I mean by what I say thank you very much.

As for the definition of bias, Princeton teaches what it will, but I prefer the definitions I was taught in journalism school and found in Webster's:

Quote:
Main Entry: bi·as
Function: noun
Date: 1649
1 : tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment
2 : having an expected value different from the quantity or parameter estimated
3 : favoring a position or point of view.
(One can go further with expanded definitions that include a concept of 'prejudice' inherent in bias.)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 12:15 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Quote:
Main Entry: bi·as
Function: noun
Date: 1649
1 : tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment
2 : having an expected value different from the quantity or parameter estimated
3 : favoring a position or point of view.
(One can go further with expanded definitions that include a concept of 'prejudice' inherent in bias.)



emphasis added . . .


I was explaining why i asked if you make this up as you go along, and given how you warped the meaning of bias, and your continuation of appeals to personal authority on your part, i can only conclude that my description of your rhetorical method is correct. Do you assume that no one lese here has attended university, that no one else here pursues a professional career, that no one else here reads, researches, observes, and exercises a reasonable logic? The inference from this last statement, and many similar statements you have posted in the past, is that you have some special insight which the rest of us lack. This is not simply a statement of opinion on my part, it is demonstrable. That you prefer your own opinion to that of others is not to be wondered at; that you feel justified in asserting both that your opinion is well-informed and qualifies you to make statements from authority--as though the opinions of those with whom you debate were not so "well-founded"--and that a conviction requires bias, is hilarious. I criticized far more than the certainty of your convictions--i criticize your hubristic contention of a special authority on your part, and your absurd contention that having become convinced of something a resulting bias is not only given, but desireable.

What a loon you appear to be when you make such statements . . .
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 12:26 pm
Fine Setanta. I will accept that it is your self-pronounced educated, objective, unbiased, qualified opinion that I appear to be an uneducated, unobjective, biased aka prejudiced loon. I've been called worse. Now can we move on please?
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 12:28 pm
How about them Leafs?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 12:31 pm
Bums! Haven't had a team worth poop since they kept their hockey sticks under that pyramid between periods.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 12:36 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Fine Setanta. I will accept that it is your self-pronounced educated, objective, unbiased, qualified opinion that I appear to be an uneducated, unobjective, biased aka prejudiced loon. I've been called worse. Now can we move on please?


My "self-pronunciation" as educated is no different from your own--and you are attempting to side-step the issue of your constant assertion that you are educated and well-informed in contexts which suggest that those with whom you debate do not enjoy the same advantages. I did not state that my remarks were unbiased, although i will state the commenting on your habitual statements from authority does not of necessity entail bias, it is simply observation. I once again assert that this is not an opinion, but a statement of demonstrable fact. Do you wish to deny that you have more than once made statements about how well-informed you are, without actually asserting a superior source of information in the context of the debates in which you made that assertion? If that is the case, it wouldn't be hard to bring up the posts--although i would not really be inclined wasting my time proving to you that you do this habitually, as it is evident to so many people here. I did not claim that you are uneducated, simply that you have no basis to appeal to your education in general as though that somehow qualifies you to make statements from authority, especially given that those who frequent this site are in the main well-educated people. I did not state that your are unobjective, although i would be more than happy to do so in the context of any specific statement from authority which you make--such as your ludicrous contentions above about the meaing of and necessity for bias. In that prejudice can reasonably replace bias in such a discussion (in contradiction of your previous assertions), i will simply refer to my previous sentence. I did not "call" you anything. I said that in making your statements from authority you make yourself appear to be a loon--whether or not you actually are a loon is a matter for speculation, which speculation is likely to take a decidedly unfavorable turn in the light of your habitual statements from authority.

Move on to what? More statements from authority on your part on the meaning of life, nature, the universe and everything?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 01:01 pm
Well if you are correct Setanta, then I have no basis to express opinions of any kind here and my opinions would be unwelcome anyway as 'so many' here share your view of me. I don't know what put the burr under your saddle but have no inclination to defend myself to you. Bye.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 01:03 pm
Bye . . . It is the problem of presenting your opinions as statements from authority to which i alluded. Were you always to offer your opinion as such, as opposed to a statement from authority, you'd leave me nothing upon which to comment.
0 Replies
 
cavfancier
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2004 01:07 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Well if you are correct Setanta, then I have no basis to express opinions of any kind here and my opinions would be unwelcome anyway as 'so many' here share your view of me. I don't know what put the burr under your saddle but have no inclination to defend myself to you. Bye.


Not that we really need to trod over this issue again, but your charachterization of what the general population here at A2K thinks of you is unfounded. Setanta is entitled to his opinion, as are you. Now break it up kids or I'm turning the car around and driving right back home. No ice cream for either of you.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.17 seconds on 10/31/2024 at 04:56:52