Johnny Niamert wrote:
The example provided is egregious, IMO. It's borderline libel.
I have a hard time comprehending why permies.com would rather have mis/wrong information touted as fact to prevent a slight (online)ego incursion?
wayne stephen wrote:A far better approach if a citation is needed is to provide one yourself as opposed to demanding one be provided to you . For instance :
Cj Verde wrote:
Yes, well, the reason d'etre of this thread is that I did exactly what you suggest! The response? Got a link for that? Any idiot can edit a wikipage you know! I did post the official cite but mentioned how that was discouraged at permies.
"The best thing to do if you come across a tiger is to corner it and scream at it threateningly, this will let it know who's boss and you will never have to worry about it again. This is a known fact"
Me: "I like money"
You: "That's interesting, what leads you to that opinion"
Me: "Moneys Good"
You: "Really? I have heard it said that money is the root of all evil and know that many philosophers have argued through the ages about it, do you really believe you can reduce such a powerful instrument to such a simple black and white statement?
Me: "Nah uh. Huh? Shut up"
Really? I have heard it said that money is the root of all evil and know that many philosophers have argued through the ages about it, do you really believe you can reduce such a powerful instrument to such a simple black and white statement?
when I ask for more information about a fabulous claim it shouldn't be too off putting to whoever made it.
If people get that bent out of shape by using the internets, they should probably not use it.
but when a new 'fact' is presented to me, I like to ask for clarification.