It several threads, I have asked for a cite and been given simply a link. When I complain, I’m accused of being too “lazy” to read the linked page. Just because I refuse to accept the implied statement that “you have to read whatever I refer you to, or you can’t participate in this discussion”, that doesn’t mean I’m lazy. If someone just posts a link, reading it is a lose-lose proposition for me. If there’s something in there that proves me wrong, well, then I’m proved wrong. And if there isn’t anything that proves me wrong, and I say “sorry, that doesn’t prove me wrong”, then they just respond that there is something there, and I’m just too prejudiced to see how it proves me wrong, blah blah blah. And how am I supposed to respond to that? I suppose that I could quote the entire site, and go through line by line showing how it doesn’t prove me wrong, but that’s just going to make me look even sillier.
BTW, “cite”, “site” and “sight” are also not synonyms.
Well, I agree with you to a certain extent in that I think that if someone gives you a link and only a small fraction of what is on that link really relates to the topic at hand then they really ought to point you to that section or quote from it or something like that. You shouldn’t have to search for the gems of wisdom that they wanted you to find.
On, the other hand, if pretty much the whole thing relates to the topic at hand, I don’t see why they would have to spoon-feed you any more than just giving the link, usually with enough context to make it clear what aspect of the debate it pertains to.
To get an idea of the “problem” The Ryan is referring to, here is a **LINK** to a thread where he demonstrates he wouldn’t know a Cite if it bit him in the ass.
I make the statement, “Sasquatch is alive and well and living in Tacoma, Washington.”
Ryan says, “Cite?”
I post a link to a Sasquatch website that says that Sasquatch is alive and well and living in Tacoma, and in addition I say, “Here is a link that proves that Sasquatch is alive and well and living in Tacoma”, and also, and most importantly, I quote the relevant portion of the website that proves my point, taking care not to overrun the “fair use” copyright guidelines. The important thing is to include the quote that proves my point–the URL is included merely so that Ryan can see where I got the quote from, so he’ll know I wasn’t making it up, not because I expect him to simply read the entire website for himself and figure out where it proves my point.
Ryan says, “Thank you for the link. I am now convinced that Sasquatch is indeed alive and well and living in Tacoma.”
Moderator’s Note: Yeah, I think I’m gonna drop this one into the Pit. It seems to be more of a complaint than a debate, and moreover a complaint about things which evidently happened in the Pit in the first place.
Well put, Duck Duck Goose. The combination of link and excerpt make the reading experience so much more enjoyable. Unless I have reason to believe the poster took the quote out of context (or just plain fabricated it), I often won’t even take the time to follow the link.
I had thought this thread would be stressing non-linkable cites: books, for example. While I agree it’s faster and more accessible to use online sources, it’s not always possible. Yet I’ve gotten the sense that offline cites are sometimes viewed with contempt.
<SNORT!> That’s classic. The only place you’ll ever see that happening is in your made-up reply here and in all of our collective dreams.
Wanna see a very specific example of the type of cited reply our dear, beloved The Ryan is complaining he didn’t get? Click Here. That link will take you directly to a post by me, without having to read through the entire 4 page thread to find it. It is WAY too long to repost in its entirety here, nor would quoting relevant excerpts be meaningful, as it has to be seen as a whole reply to convince you that it qualifies - hell, I even bolded and underlined the most relevant of the relevant parts of the cite I was quoting! (And for the record, it wasn’t the first or the last such cited and quoted reply provided to our dear, beloved The Ryan - just one of many to prove my point.)
Now, as far as ‘cite’ vs. ‘link’ if the ‘link’ goes to a cite from the main page of the DOJ for example, and you’re using it to prove that in 1998, the percentage of sexual assaults that were committed by people known to the victim was 27%, then, yes, that’s not correct.
However, if you’ve linked to the page involved, you betcha.
I’d assumed (apparently wrongly) that folks here are able to click on a link and read a page.
This explains so much about you, The Ryan. You consider being proven wrong as a bad thing. It it not better to think you are right than to know you are wrong.
Ironically, for you to acknowledge this truism would require you to acknowledge you had been wrong. Catch-22
I think everybody is misunderstanding TheRyan. When he asks for a cite, he means a cite that has some sort of information that he can twist to suit his own needs. When he says “a cite that proves me wrong” he actually means “a cite that proves me right.”
Yes, I know this is the opposite of what he asked for but in the semantic gymnasium of TheRyan’s mind, these two sentences can and sometimes do mean the same thing.
This type of infuriating pigheadedness in not unique to TheRyan but I’ll be Ned Beatty in a mini-skirt in a Georgia backwoods before I ever see such nit-picky, parsing obtuseness from a person claiming to be sane.
Don’t be so hard on TheRyan. Maybe he just doesn’t like web links to serve as the ultimate authority on everything. There is a lot of other information out there. I THINK that when he asks us for a cite, he wants us to go to the library, photocopy the relevant material, and FedEx it to him for more careful perusal. That way he can study the material, make notes, and mark the material up so that he can fully take in the nuances of the point we are trying to get at.
See in my opinion when asking for a cite getting a link is far better. God only know how you people will quote the source material to make your point, I’d rather read through the entire article you read and see if I agree with your conclusion.
Granted I’ve never bothered to click on any of the links provided by anyone in any arguements. You’re either right or wrong and usually I’m not interested enough to care.
I remember this one time… at band camp… Oh no wait, that was Great Debates. Anyway, El Ryano asked me for a cite, and I reponded with a link that contained exactly one paragraph, less than a hundred words which was directly on topic.
He responded with the old “A link is not a site, how can you expect me to read the whole thing,” schtick, which pretty much told me that he hadn’t even clicked the damn thing.
So, I lambasted him while quoting the entire link a variety of ways, for not showing the proper esprix de corps and bonhommie that should exist between rational debaters.
He just got all huffy and left.
Now he simply waits until I get myself into a tight spot in a debate and then he jumps in for a cheap shot.
