Research Before Posting

[jviehe]

Am I the only one who actually checks most of the my facts before posting, or does a little bit of research to see if the opinion Im posting is backed up by facts? It's getting a bit out of hand here with people just posting before thinking. Like 'go read this, it says this'. Then you go read it and it doesnt say that. Or 'the polls say x' then you go look at the polls, and the dont say that. Or 'x statistic shows that x happened after x', then you go look at it, and its not conclusive.

Ive often started to type claims like this before checking, and then had to erase it before posting because I wasnt sure I could conclusively prove the point using the available information. Is that so hard for people to do?

/rantoff

p.s. - yes i make mistakes, i have no problem being corrected on FACTS

[tsquare]

Methinks you aim too high...

How about think before you post?

That would be a great start.

[Imperator]

Am I the only one who actually checks most of the my facts before posting, or does a little bit of research to see if the opinion Im posting is backed up by facts? It's getting a bit out of hand here with people just posting before thinking. Like 'go read this, it says this'. Then you go read it and it doesnt say that. Or 'the polls say x' then you go look at the polls, and the dont say that. Or 'x statistic shows that x happened after x', then you go look at it, and its not conclusive.

Ive often started to type claims like this before checking, and then had to erase it before posting because I wasnt sure I could conclusively prove the point using the available information. Is that so hard for people to do?

/rantoff

p.s. - yes i make mistakes, i have no problem being corrected on FACTS

very good point, I have a question along those lines-

how many people here actually READ...I mean read news, as in several sources on a daily basis? And have read books, I mean BOOKS as to topics they get heavily involved in here?

I scan 10 sources every morning. 4 left, 4 right, 2 in the middle.....its doesn't take long, maybe an hour.....

the question is important to me because debating what I call a google ranger, is infuriating.

why is it important to read every day or at least every other day? if you read books and read news sources etc. every day you have the/a continuity of knowledge, you remember past facts or opinions based on topics and know where to look and at the very least, have background to start with...and book knowledge speaks for itself...

Someone who knows very little of the debate/topic, has very little background except just what they immediately read, then post their "opinions" as facts, get huffy when challenged then run you around so you wind up educating them, trying to your prove your point, they debate by "Google Rangering", 30 seconds and voila', read one quick article and instant expert....anyway, then, when you explain and back up your point, again, they disappear from the thread. :rolleyes:

[jviehe]

Im not even going that far. Just everyone do me a favor and when you claim something factual, actually check to see if it is true. If you claim a poll says something, verify it first. If you claim the constitution says something, go read it to be sure. And that goes for whatever blog your quoting also. Check THEIR facts.

[chassisman]

Am I the only one who actually checks most of the my facts before posting, or does a little bit of research to see if the opinion Im posting is backed up by facts? It's getting a bit out of hand here with people just posting before thinking. Like 'go read this, it says this'. Then you go read it and it doesnt say that. Or 'the polls say x' then you go look at the polls, and the dont say that. Or 'x statistic shows that x happened after x', then you go look at it, and its not conclusive.

Ive often started to type claims like this before checking, and then had to erase it before posting because I wasnt sure I could conclusively prove the point using the available information. Is that so hard for people to do?

/rantoff

p.s. - yes i make mistakes, i have no problem being corrected on FACTS

since roughly 94% of all posts contains veiled insults, what kind of research should be required before said posts? Maybe this? :

Amazon.com: The Giant Book Of Insults: Incorporating 2000 Insults for All Occasions and 2000 More Insults…

[Dick Martin]

Im not even going that far. Just everyone do me a favor and when you claim something factual, actually check to see if it is true. If you claim a poll says something, verify it first. If you claim the constitution says something, go read it to be sure. And that goes for whatever blog your quoting also. Check THEIR facts.

That won't work. I have sat face to face with people and they read something and I read something and we each see very different things.

Ask Republicans who was President during the first 4 years of the Great Depression and my bet is that 8 out of 10 will say it was FDR.

In all my years I have never seen the current level of denial among voters.

[Captain Trips]

That won't work. I have sat face to face with people and they read something and I read something and we each see very different things.

Ask Republicans who was President during the first 4 years of the Great Depression and my bet is that 8 out of 10 will say it was FDR.

In all my years I have never seen the current level of denial among voters.

It seems that (denial) can be seen from all angles

Those still in denial .... reality always fixes this eventually.

[jviehe]

That won't work. I have sat face to face with people and they read something and I read something and we each see very different things.

Ask Republicans who was President during the first 4 years of the Great Depression and my bet is that 8 out of 10 will say it was FDR.

In all my years I have never seen the current level of denial among voters.

That example would require an agreement on when the Depression started of course, which could be an opinion, not a fact. Im talking about clear facts, ie the constitution says X, or a poll says X, or theres X number of illegals in the country according to x. Its pretty easy to check that stuff, but people just rattle off things without bothering to verify.

[Helene]

since roughly 94% of all posts contains veiled insults, what kind of research should be required before said posts? Maybe this? :

Amazon.com: The Giant Book Of Insults: Incorporating 2000 Insults for All Occasions and 2000 More Insults…

Jviehe is referring to specific posts that claim things, post a link that supposedly supports their claim, and then it turns out to be untrue.

Also, if you stop posting, how much will the percentage drop?

[iamwhatiseem]

Good point jviehe.
Worth considering in adding a rule of some sort.
Basically if the linked article is actually opposite of what your opening opinion states it is, or the article has little to nothing to do with the OP opinion - I can see where the thread should be closed.

Although...it is fun to see someone try and weasel out of it to save their face.

[chassisman]

Jviehe is referring to specific posts that claim things, post a link that supposedly supports their claim, and then it turns out to be untrue.

Also, if you stop posting, how much will the percentage drop?

C'mon lil hellene, back that crap up with an example.

[noahath]

Im not even going that far. Just everyone do me a favor and when you claim something factual, actually check to see if it is true. If you claim a poll says something, verify it first. If you claim the constitution says something, go read it to be sure. And that goes for whatever blog your quoting also. Check THEIR facts.

The problem as I see it is that quite a lot of members do check their facts, but the problem arises when people are presented with facts contrary to their own view point, and they thus won't like the counter-argument. Some people prefer to deliberately remain in the dark, rather than admit that they were wrong, and actually learnt something from someone else on the Forum.

[Captain Trips]

The problem as I see it is that quite a lot of members do check their facts, but the problem arises when people are presented with facts contrary to their own view point, and they thus won't like the counter-argument. Some people prefer to deliberately remain in the dark, rather than admit that they were wrong, and actually learnt something from someone else on the Forum.

Be careful, you're starting to sound like helene.

Her view is that it's always someone ELSE that is/was wrong and won't "admit" to it.

Never helene.

helene is always RIGHT you see ?

That's written somewhere in the uspoliticsonline terms of service, or I'm guessing someone thinks it should be.

Think I'm making this up ?

Read through this weirdness:

Why do you come here, if you don't care to learn?

[noahath]

Oh I am the first to admit that I have learnt plenty from others on the Forum, just as I hope that some may have learnt something from me. The thing is though that we all come here for one reason: to vent our political views, but there are a few who have no interest in having their views tested by others - they just want to vent and run. It's those that stick around long-term for the (dare I say it) fun who I believe are the ones that are genuinely interested in presenting our personal views, but also learning from others based on what others say about our views, and challenging them.

[Captain Trips]

Oh I am the first to admit that I have learnt plenty from others on the Forum, just as I hope that some may have learnt something from me.

Yes, I have learned many things from many different members too.

The thing is though that we all come here for one reason: to vent our political views, but there are a few who have no interest in having their views tested by others - they just want to vent and run.

Yes, it's become an art now.

Part of this is because of what I was talking about here:


Why do you come here, if you don't care to learn?

When I said:

"In an online forum situation with very lax rules, the majority of participants really aren't interested in learning or teaching. There's no reason to be."

It's those that stick around long-term for the (dare I say it) fun who I believe are the ones that are genuinely interested in presenting our personal views, but also learning from others based on what others say about our views, and challenging them.

Sure, and it can be incredibly frustrating to long term users, because one eventually hits a kind of "ceiling," that I think has to do with the situation of very lax rules.