Now, this all stems from a thread some time back when I made some assertions about privacy act policy and its relation to military public relations. RTFirefly didn’t find my cites sufficient, which is his right, but now feels he needs to question my credibility in many threads.
Now, I am always happy to provide a citation to anything I assert, and will generally do so as I post something that I feel needs to be backed up. In any case, I will always try to do so whenever asked. I feel I am somewhat conscientious in this regard.
So credibility in this case means, for RT either a personal dislike of me, a profound political disagreement, or likely a combination of the two. And while that might be a fair opinion to hold, I don’t see why he needs to question it constantly when a simple request for a citation would suffice.
If anyone else has had a bad experience with me when I made a counterfactual or poorly cited argument and didn’t correct that error, let me know.
The problem is that you make a factual assertion without a cite, then I have to ask you to provide one, then you provide one, then it often doesn’t back up your original statement (though you usually don’t qualify it), then I point that out, and then finally you retract of qualify your assertion.
My problem with you is that I have to routinely go through this process with you. No, I can’t trust your claims without a cite.
In the thread you linked to, we’re already up to the second-to-last ‘then’ in that sequence.
I don’t see why you need to make factual assertions about matters that are not common knowledge without a cite in the first place.
You could quit whining about whether I like you and whether it makes a difference, if you’d just do that to begin with.
Again, the problem isn’t that you don’t eventually admit it. It’s that you all too often put shit out as facts, and then we have to go through this multistep ritual every time before you finally admit that your shit ain’t facts.
BTW, Mr. Moto’s complaint, AFAICT, stems from an assertion he made at post 62 of the linked thread.
Funny thing, Mr. M, but that was the second time you’d made unsupported assertions in that thread, the first being at post 17. When I pressed you on it, you just said you didn’t need to back it up - you’d made your point.
I’m sure I can find a bunch of older examples too. But that’s twice in the very thread you cite.
I’ll get you more, for your enjoyment. But this thread was your idea, so kindly don’t expect me to have all our relevant past encounters at my fingertips. If I’d started this thread, I’d have done some digging in advance. You couldn’t even be bothered to link to the only older thread you refer to.
OK. Let’s look at this thread for a couple of for-instances.
At post 162, you claimed:
At post 168, I asked you how you knew that. Your ‘support’ of that, @169, was:
IOW, total conjecture dressed up as fact.
So I had to start the step-by-step process: at post 171, I demolished most of those assertions, but asked for a cite on the “evidence that he lost because voters there were turned off to a large degree by the behavior of his volunteers in that state” part.
Never did get a response to that, or a retraction of either that statement or the original “deeply strange” assertion.