So Hong Kong people “live in fear of the Red army marching in” but they are “happy with the situation”? People are happy to live in fear? See you in the pit.
Like I said, too many people out there are happy if things are OK right now no matter how bad things could get. I have no doubt many are happy, as they aren’t starving and have some place to sleep.
However others *are *scared of what could happen, as it’s a reasonable possibility- it’s happened before and there’s nothing to stop it from happening again.
But hell, there are dudes living on the slopes of active volcanoes that seem to be able to ignore the rumblings.
Cite?
By which I mean, KNOCK IT OFF!
It took me a while to figure out how to behave here, and how to think like a skeptic. I learned that people I trusted sometimes told me things that weren’t true. They weren’t intentionally lying; they believed those things, too. I learned to file that stuff away under “things I heard that might be true.”
If you have something to say, but you have no idea how to verify it, go ahead and say it, but say you can’t back it up. Maybe somebody else can find a cite.
I learned to at least try to look something up before stating it here as fact. If I can find it, it’s easy to provide a link in my post. However, I’m not lightning fast on search engines. Sometimes, I’ll look up something, but by the time I get back, three other people have beaten me to it. That’s no fun.
Before I joined here, I used to say “My mind is a storehouse of useless information.” I still say that, but now I know some of it is useless and incorrect.
I learned some things aren’t worth getting all growfy over. I don’t have to get snarky, just because somebody’s spouting crap.
Moving thread from IMHO to The BBQ Pit.
Obligatory, semi-related xkcd link.
Of course, this may in a particular case be because the person hassling you is a dick. However, IME most of the time people ask for cites of opinions or experiences because a poster is trying to have it both ways. They actually want their experience or opinion to be taken as valuable factual information, but they hide their assertion behind a facade of opinion as a way of avoiding being called on to back it up.
Some professional offenderati try to portray it as snark so that they can get huffy about being called on their shit, hoping this will cover their lack of factual rigour. Ignore them. If we want to talk about offensiveness, let’s talk about the offensiveness of posting facts that you are not very ready to back up on a facts based messageboard. If you call “cite” you may be hitting back, but don’t let any bastard tell you you started the fight.
If they are continuing to participate in the thread in a way that ignores the cite you have provided, bring their attention to the fact that you have cited your proposition. Persist. Rub their face it in. If they have gone away, it’s because they have been embarrassed. The fact that people may well not like to admit they have lost a debate doesn’t mean they haven’t. It took me a good while to learn that sometimes you have to just accept that your position is correct and that you have demonstrated that your position is correct, and trust that those capable of understanding have done so.
In the end there is a thin red line between the culture of these boards and the gibberish and bullshit that is currency on so many others. The day when the dominant culture is one that regards it as offensive to cursorily demand third party verification of factual assertions is the day when the thin red line has been washed away.
Look, by the same token I can prove Americans live in terror of being tried for being witches but just say nothing because they can’t think past their breakfast.
“others *are *scared of what could happen”? What is “what could happen”? What could happen in your opinion? Where are those people? Please show us. Or, in a nutshell, to put it in terms familiar in this board: cite?.
(I really did not mean to hijack this thread with this topic which was originally being discussed in another thread.)
Why was this thread moved? It was not a rant. It was my humble opinion.
I only dislike “Cite?” when it’s used as a joke. Example:
Poster A: “I have a hard time finding dresses that fit, because I have a really large bust in proportion to the rest of my body.”
Poster B: “Cite?”
Come on now. It may have been funny the first few times, but it’s not anymore. And I suppose I can ignore it when it’s obvious that flirtation is part of the discussion, but in many situations, it’s completely un-called for and inappropriate. Poster A shouldn’t have to deal with sleazy comments in a thread about fashion or clothing advice. And yes, it’s sleazy. I have no problem with mild flirtation or flattery, even in my direction. I’m married but I’m not a prude. But Poster B is basically saying “SHOW ME PIX OF UR BOOBIEZ!” and it’s really un-funny.
I agree, Millit.
Count me in as someone else who is sick to death of this. I almost started a pit thread about it the other day. Any time a female poster mentions a body part, or anything along any line that invokes a visual image they’ll get a ton of cite comments or folks that elaborate along the lines of: I really can’t judge without seeing a picture blah blah blah. Perhaps it was funny once. Now is so over worn and cliche it’s just irritating.
A good post on the game board would be to start a thread with the message:** I have large, bouncy breasts** and see how quickly the first response that said cite was logged in. I’d wager next month’s paycheck it would be less than a minute.
Well, I see your point, but in MPSIMS, it’s a tradition.
On a related note, some time ago I replied back to a female doper who had posted something which indicated she would be a nice person to get to know. I posted the other traditional post “How yew doin’?” and she was pleased and flattered as no one had ever given her that SDMB traditional semi-flirting reply.
So, maybe us dudes can hold back on the joke-flirty replies outside MPSIMS.
Although the use of cites does provide a unique tone, I think there’s one piece of evidence for the fact that “Cite?” may be used too snarkily, and that’s the fact that it’s hard to ask for a cite because you just want information on a subject you’re interested in, without a lot of qualifications and mollifying (“Could you tell me your source for that? I don’t doubt you, it’s just hard to find reference material,” &c.)
Which…makes it okay?
See, “How you doin’?” is cool. I’d have a very hard time being offended or put off by this. It means, to me, very much what you said: “Hey, you seem interesting, very nice, and/or cool.” But “Cite?” in this context just comes across as “I wanna see your BOOOOOOBS!” This is appropriate under only very specific circumstances. Example:
**
Poster A**: “Why doesn’t anyone notice me, romantically? It seems like I never attract men, in spite of my enormous, bouncy, supple breasts!”
**
Poster B**: “Cite?”
In that case, Poster A is clearly Asking For It. 
I can handle general firtation, but sleaze makes this a less friendly place to be. It’s hard to draw a line, I understand, as evidenced by the large number of threads that go something like, “I just told a girl I want to wear her nail clippings as a necklace. Was I creepy?” For all of you guys who are confused, take a hint: unless we’ve made it clear that our various body parts demand attention, keep the picture requests to a minimum, OK?
Sorry for the hijack, back to your regularly scheduled Pit thread.
I think the request for citations to backup a categorical statement is entirely appropriate. Even if I can do a google search myself and get the information, it’s not MY job to do so if you make a statement (though when I’m at a computer and involved in a debate I’ll often do so anyway and see what turns up). What I’d want to see is what sources the poster is using to reach the conclusions they are reaching wrt whatever statement they are making.
Take the nuclear power thread in GD. I’ve asked Gonzomax for cites regarding the cost and viability of CO2 scrubbers and carbon sequestration. He has basically ignored such requests or has provided cites to unrelated or tangential articles from in most cases dubious sources. I don’t expect HIM to understand this…I’m making a point to other readers who, I presume, are following along and actually clicking on the links he is providing…or following along and noting the ones he ISN’T providing to backup his assertions.
I’m sure Gonzo is highly annoyed by requests for cites, since it happens to him constantly. However, if he didn’t make categorical assertions that are also mainly off the wall he wouldn’t be asked for cites to back his assertions up. Of course, I could provide cites of my own (there is an amusing article on Pop-Sci right now concerning carbon sequestration), but the point is I want to know what HIS sources are. Well, that and the fact that I’m lazy of course.
-XT
When reading a book, do you expect the author to define for you all the words that you do not know?
Why no…I don’t. However, if an author makes a statement of fact that I disagree with I would expect them to backup their statements…or it will be rather more difficult for them to convince me that what they are stating is believable. No?
If you make a statement that all left handed dwarfs with red hair are androgynous, and I don’t know what androgynous means, then I’ll look it up. I’m not really likely to ask you for a cite on what the definition of androgynous is…more likely to ask you to backup your statement about left handed red haired dwarfs…
-XT
OK, I see your point. Good to know.
**
Tracy Lord** well, yes- to an extent- tradition is important too. But I agree sometimes it goes too far.