Jer wrote:I believe the standard way of presenting facts is:
"FACT"
-link to source
I'm sure that we could use a Danish translator to make sense of the Danish source. Another standard principle in presenting facts is that you can find more than one source for them. The more credible sources you provide, the more believable your fact is.
Oh come ON people.
LRR Hood - with whom I rarely ever agree - apparently was right on target when earlier on he posted,
L.R.R.Hood wrote:its why I don't want to go through all the trouble a second time. I have a feeling that since I've expressed my negative feelings toward this man, even if I did offer "proof", you all would just ignore it anyway--or accuse me of lying somehow.
Lemme track back here. Theres a thread on Moore. Everyone gets to chime in with their opinion of what is relatively cool or right about his movies. Then LRRH comes in and says, lookit, I
did look at one of his movies, I didnt trust it and I actually
did trace up some facts - and it turned out he had twisted 'em. S been a few years, so no, I cant immediately drag up all the archived material for y'all, but thats what
I found, anyway.
What the hell is wrong with that? Everybody here gets to post his opinion about that Bush "lied" about this and "was just plain wrong" about that, but when someone notes that he, back then, looked up some stuff that showed
Moore to be lying, he's reprimanded for recounting that experience if he wasnt willing to do all the research for us over again? If he wasnt, he should have shut up: "support it, or don't say it"!
That strikes me as utter nonsense, for one. Loads and loads of posts where people asserted that they found X or Y to be true or false through whatever they read and feel they've learned - noone says much about it. You take it for what it is: thats what that somebody considers to be true or false on the basis of what he's looked up about it. For example, I assume I am allowed to say here that, through what I read back in my studies, I found that the Yugoslav wars were primarily about deliberate political intentions rather than spontaneous ethnic hatreds, without anyone telling me I had no right to even post that if I wasn't willing to quote the sources I used back then in full. But if its a conservative and he touches Moore, suddenly the guy hasnt got the right to speak unless he brings a library of data.
Anyway - then LRRH actually
does come back, with a list of specific allegations of stuff Moore is said to have lied about -- actually
translating it for all ya, I gather - and its still not OK. Of course not. He should have provided us with the
link. Never mind that he already warned that he would have "provide[d] a link, but its in Danish". Then he actually
does come back with a link and its
still not enough: no, its just the one source, it should have been multiple ones, and "we could use a Danish translator to make sense of the Danish source" (heads up: somebody just
did translate it for ya).
Childish, childish, childish. People, LRRH did his work. He looked up what the specific allegations were, provided you with a link, everything. You dont wanna accept it? Then its up to YOU now to dig up your own research that shows that those allegations are NOT based in reality. Or is it OK for
you to just claim so on basis of your memory of unspecified stuff you read?
<grumble grumble grumble>
