Lash wrote:Nimh--
You know good and well that if a member makes an assertion, they are asked to back it up with a source. Since always.
Never stopped you from making assertions without documenting each with a link. Youve done what GW now did countless times, so why suddenly the scorn for her?
(For random example, repeated assertions of Obama's "cozy relationship with Daley", which refers to what more exactly than a man endorsing his party's candidate for an election?)
Like Cyclo and you, of course, I
am in principle all for people documenting their assertions - just sounds a bit sanctimonious coming from you (and thats from someone who actually likes you). But also, of course, I think its different if, you know - you
invite someone to give his opinion, like, "so, what do you think of this man then?". When he then gives it, its sorta obvious from that context alone that that is what he will be giving - his opinion. Doesnt exactly then also still need a disclaimer for every remark.
Meanwhile, you made a bunch of assumptions yourself (about the book, for example) that were misjudged, and I dont see you acknowledging that or going back on 'em..
I dunno. Of course I think people should come up with data and links - opinions, to quote Amigo when he was angry at me once, are like arseholes, everyone's got one. So data, facts, links etc have more added value.
But there is also this point where someone already gives you enough info (say, title and author of book) that two clicks on Google will give you the accompanying info (say, that its not tabloid stuff). To then still say the equivalent of, "well I aint gonna do those two clicks, that was your job, so I'm just gonna sit here not knowing what you were talking about instead" smacks too much like, simply - no offence - "I dont want to know".
I might be reacting like that also partly because of the parallel discussion with Foxfyre on the other (McCain Giuliani etc) thread. But I mean, this is what it comes down to basically, isnt it? If someone was posting here that my preferred candidate had some serious problem that could still majorly eff his run up, I would want to
know. If I'm given the names of the people involved, the name of a book about it, links to the NYT news archive about it, or such more, I would want to paste that info into Google with one sweep of the finger, click that link, and find out! Instead, we seem to encounter this, "well I'm not gonna look any of this up until I deem you to have given me a direct enough link". Might as well just say, "I prefer to not know," no?
Conservatives must get wood when liberals start bashing religion. I can ill imagine a dumber strategy in a country where 80% of the citizens still believe in a higher power.