"Cite?" is wearing very thin

[Cisco]

@DrDeth

Ok, show me some recent threads where this sort of thing has been done. Other than the joke usage (which has gotten out of control a bit, I agree), it does not seem to be overly used. I just tried a search for “Cite?” in GD in the last week, and got no hits.

Careful with those goal posts, Eugene.

[DrDeth]

@MeanOldLady

Take a chill tablet; Cisco is right. Many of you disagree, as evidenced by your CITE CITE CITE fucking CITE! mantra that has run wild in every other thread, and by your stated opposition in this thread, but his point is perfectly clear. It’s plain silly and rude to demand someone provide a citation for every stitch of information, opinion, working theory or speculation offered, especially when a two-second Google search can answer your questions.
How do people who require constant citations have conversations at bars?

Funny, I can’t find any posts with “cite?” in them in the entire last week for GD, GQ or IMHO. You’d think if it was a “constant” “mantra” there’d be at least one example (unless Search is broken, which does happen), and you’d be able to find an example to meet each one of your made-up-examples. Can you find one for each?

[Cisco]

Why do you keep limiting the forums and the timeframe? You realize that this thread itself is a month old, right? This is why it’s so fucking pointless to argue with internet assholes when they start acting like you’re acting, DrDeth. It’s like arguing with a 9/11 truther. You’re just going to cart those goal posts around until you get bored of it and then drop the thread. If you’re shown examples you’ll say not recent enough, wrong forum, not specific enough. If you get one example you’ll want 2, if you get 5 you’ll want 10. If they’re posted by a guest you’ll ask for a charter member; if it’s a charter member you’ll ask for an example of Cecil himself doing it on a Sunday, in the Game Room, in a thread about Tekken 4. Just save us all some time and fuck the fuck off.

[DrDeth]

@Cisco

Why do you keep limiting the forums and the timeframe? You realize that this thread itself is a month old, right? You’re just going to cart those goal posts around until you get bored of it and then drop the thread. If you’re shown examples you’ll say not recent enough, .

I have not limited the forums or the timeframe,. That is what** I** searched. You are welcome to search anyhwere and anytime you like. Can you find any examples *at all *of what MeanOldLady claims? Let alone enough to be able to claim it’s a “constant” “mantra”. What does “constant” mean to you, then? Once a year?:dubious:

So, try me, find me one example of each, sometime in some period that comes close to what anyone else here would agree is often enough to be called “constant”.

But you can’t and you won’t. I have already shown it is not “constant”. You likely have tried and failed (just like with the other request), and now you resort to personal insults, whining and profanity in lieu of a real answer. You are the Poster Boy of why we ask for “cite?”- because you can’t come up with cites. No wonder you started this thread.

[Cisco]

Here’s the deal, DrDeth:

I offered to give you exactly what you wanted a couple hours ago in post #132 if you would agree to admit you were wrong, and you blatantly ignored me, because you were dangerously close to having to admit you were wrong. So you moved on and are now “challenging” me to give you other stuff that I have no interest in. I’m not your fucking errand boy. I’m not mean old lady’s fact-checker. Find it yourself.

And, by the way, I have no doubt that you’ll be tempted now to “accept” my challenge from post #132, predicting that I’ll want to stick to my guns and refuse. You’re a coward, and a goal-post courier, and a specious prick.

And by the way, no I haven’t “looked” for whatever you’re looking for. I’m not even sure what you’re asking for, and I’m sure you want it that way.

[SuaSponte]

I actually like being called for a cite. I’m usually not bullshitting in my posts, and I get a cheap thrill by slamming the idiot asking for a cite with a half-dozen links.

Sua

[Cisco]

@DrDeth

Funny, I can’t find any posts with “cite?” in them in the entire last week for GD, GQ or IMHO. You’d think if it was a “constant” “mantra” there’d be at least one example

Here with about 2 seconds of effort, is 274 uses of the exact term “cite?” with a question mark, in 5 years. That’s one per week. It’ll be interesting to see where you take this one. I’m thinking of writing a new series of books, kind of like Where’s Waldo, called Where Are DrDeth’s Goalposts? I’m afraid they’ll be considered way too hard, though, and people will want to do differential equations instead.

[DrDeth]

@Cisco

Here’s the deal, DrDeth:

I offered to give you exactly what you wanted a couple hours ago in post #132 if you would agree to admit you were wrong, and you blatantly ignored me, because you were dangerously close to having to admit you were wrong. .

And, you didn’t come up with the info, thus why should I admit I was wrong?

[Cisco]

You’re certifiable, DrDeth. You know that?

[DrDeth]

@Cisco

Here with about 2 seconds of effort, is 274 uses of the exact term “cite?” with a question mark, in 5 years. That’s one per week. .

I didn’t ask for examples of the word “cite?” being used. I asked for "Can you find any examples at all of what **MeanOldLady **claims? "It’s plain silly and rude to demand someone provide a citation for every stitch of information, opinion, working theory or speculation offered, especially when a two-second Google search can answer your questions. If I say New York City is the most populous city in the US, I’m not going to provide a link to the US Census Bureau to support my claim. If you don’t know that, look it up.

…
Does a statement like this need to be followed up with, “CITE?!” The citation is called life. Are you really asking someone to cite 200 years of race relations? If you disagree with any part of the example statement, please state why you disagree, and if you have evidence to support your position, please feel free to provide it. If you would like to know how that conclusion was drawn, ask. This “cite” nonsense has gotten out of control.*
Your list, item #1 is a request for Cite for "Critics of the gold standard seem to me to be ignorant of a few basic economic principles. Like the nature of money, and how governments manipulate it for their own purposes. The Federal Reserve was created so government would always have enough money for their welfare state projects and so they would have enough money to wage wars. ". Pretty technical issue, the Gold Standard, and the poster came up with some sort of BS conspiracy asnwer based upon " Federal Reserve scheme", so “Cite?” was a correct response as the poster had nuthin.

Next is the word “Cite?” being used in a fake example for the purposes of what appears to be humor. No one was actually asking for a cite.

Next was a poster claiming crap from the OT, and the proper response was Cite? as the poster was claiming stuff from the OT that wasn’t there.

Next was Bosda asking for a cite for this "… spinal manipulation is listed under ‘Proven Treatment Options’ … " and the cite was given. No problem.

Next was a request for a very technical computer issue clarification.

Last there was a request for a cite on “Apparently eating the meat of calving/recently calved cows isn’t a good idea… why?” and a cite was given.

And so forth. See, just searching and finding 274 instances of Cite in five years does not prove it has been “constantly” used as a “mantra” here. In fact, hell, that few uses in five fucking years proves it is *not *used “constantly” as a “mantra”.

So, you gave me a “cite” for a question I did not ask (how many times has the word “Cite?” been used in the last five years:rolleyes:) , but I still thank you as your cite has proved both you and MeanOldLady wrong. See, cites are very valuable, they prove points.

[Cisco]

@DrDeth

I didn’t ask for examples of the word “cite?” being used.

Jesus fucking Christ, yes you did. I’m not even reading the rest of that post. Fuck off.

[Telemark]

@Cisco

Jesus fucking Christ, yes you did. I’m not even reading the rest of that post. Fuck off.

Then you’re missing a valid discussion of the topic at hand.

[Cisco]

Shrug, I’m sure I’ll find something to fill the void in my life that not reading DrDeth’s last post has left. Eventually, I mean . . . <looks off into the distance sadly>

[Guinastasia]

@Rune

Cite-bullshit

• a person takes the time to write a few lines, at least the person asking for a cite could make the effort to try to narrow in what it is he wants cited, rather than just reply with a blanket CITE. Here she doesn’t take the time to specify what of the five points in the quoted paragraph she wants a cite for. Perhaps she had no clue that in India and China there are some problems with “imbalance in the ratio of the sexes” or perhaps she has never heard of the idea that some people have speculated that the “drop in crimes rates may have been due in large part to abortion” or it is one of the other things she wants a cite? Who knows. In any case, such a lazy attitude is not worthy of response.

I wanted a cite for his claims. Maybe I haven’t heard such. Does it really matter? Point is-if you’re going to MAKE such specific claims, you’re going to have to have the data, or at least a source for it. Perhaps I should have asked more politely than “cite”, but at the same time, it’s not my job to do the research for someone else.

[Zoe]

Cisco, I asked you a question to find out exactly what it was that you wanted. There was nothing rude or catty in what I said. I asked my question after reading all of your posts to that point and still not understanding exactly what it was that was annoying you – the word itself or being asked to produce backup information.

You told me to read your posts to find out. That was rude of you. So I tried explaining that I had already read your posts and did not see an answer to my question. Then I summarized what I had asked.

You said you didn’t have any idea what I was talking about. (I paraphrase.)

At this point I thought that you are a little on the slow side and needed things spelled out for you in little easy words written in crayon. I tried doing that. Now you say that you are afraid to give me an answer that I can pick at.

Well you poor baby. You want to say that “cite” is wearing thin, but you don’t want to say why because I might rough you up a little with words?

For crying out loud, Cisco! It was an honest question! You are so paranoid that you can’t even handle a question which is intended to try to work something out to accomodate your wishes! You have giblets for brains.

From now on you will get nothing but “cite” from me whenever I see that you have made a claim that is suspicious.

If you will quit making things up, people will quit bugging you for a cite.

[Cisco]

Zoe, you’re kidding me. You’ve just got to be kidding me. If THE OP OF THIS THREAD didn’t make my point obvious enough, and all the following posts didn’t drive the point home, I just don’t know what I can do for you.

Now you want to insult me and call me slow because you can’t read a thread?

The answer is BOTH, in varying circumstances, to varying degrees, as evidenced here:

@Cisco

[cite] has become, for most practical purposes, snark. I’ve gotten a strong impression that, at least 9 out of 10 times, people asking “cite?” don’t really want a cite, aren’t going to read it if you provide one, or are just going to nitpick the minutiae of it to death.

You don’t want a cite. You either know it’s something uncitable ("my cousin once told me . . . ", “CITE?!!!”), or it’s something you could find ridiculously easy on Google. Like, first hit easy. Anything that turns up on the first page of Google using obvious search terms should not be asked for. Find that yourself if you’re truly interested. We’re all capable internet users here.

It’s a disingenuous, played-out request that has run its course here and needs to be retired in all but the most earnest of instances. The very minimum criteria for asking for a cite should be that you’ve made an honest effort to find one yourself and failed. It’s not everyone else’s responsibility to hold your hand through the factual intricacies of every discussion. You wouldn’t ask for a cite in the middle of a discussion at a dinner party.

here:

@Cisco

So then why don’t you just say that, instead of being snarky and disingenuous?
Oh, I’ve been hassled for cites plenty of times after making statements that began with “in my experience.”

here:

@Cisco

You wouldn’t expect someone to give you citations for every statement they made in conversation. Why? Because it’s rude and unnecessarily provocative, but people do it here because they can get away with it. And it’s not like “cites” are the be-all, end-all of objective fact anyway. Even if we only accepted peer-reviewed papers as cites, there are plenty of peer-reviewed papers out there that directly contradict each other. You accept what you decide to accept, and if something that is important to you is questionable, you look it up yourself. Here you can go the extra step of saying, "hey, I looked into this and what I found contradicts what poster X stated . . . ", or just make a more compelling argument. Expecting the membership to spoon feed you everything you want to know is preposterous. Did you accept everything your teachers told you in school? I know I didn’t, and I trust teachers and professors far more than I trust random annonymous people on the internet.

and here:

@Cisco

There is a lot to arguing that doesn’t involve dry facts, and many cites are biased, outdated, or just plain wrong anyway. And it’s not that I would never ask where someone was getting their information from but, well-- that’s a perfect example-- “where are you getting your information?” is a lot less abrasive than cite?! in my opinion. Even asking for a source seems more accurate and genuine. It’s not as much wanting it but the way it’s asked for here that gets to me. We’re participating in group discussions here, not comparing term papers. “Cite?” is something I would expect a professor to write on a freshman’s homework.

Happy? Now please either:
A) Admit you were wrong
B) Admit you were wrong and apologize
C) Admit you were wrong, apologize, and explain why you couldn’t just read the thread
D) Admit you were wrong, apologize, explain why you couldn’t just read the thread, and explain what I was making up
E) STFU and go away
F) Spin this in your favor somehow and prove to me that you never wanted to do anything but argue

I’d really like to see you choose A through D, but I’m a realist. I have a feeling F is going to make an appearance, or, at best, E.

[Zoe]

I thought you might want an honest answer.

My original question was this:

Zoe: Cisco, are you saying that it is the abruptness of the word “cite” that you object to rather than being asked to provide a source for your information?

An honest response from you could have been:

"I don’t see why I should have to provide a source of information for every comment I make, but asking me my source is better than constantly saying, “Cite!”

What was it that you think I was wrong about?

Now you want to insult me and call me slow because you can’t read a thread?

I did read your thread. All forty-eleven long, unorganized posts. And there, buried under all of the whiining about how you shouldn’t be expected to know anything and we shouldn’t trust noted experts and you should be allowed to pull down answers out of thin air, were pieces and parts of an answer. It was as clear as the fog in your eyes.

Meanwhile, I write two or three lines asking a simple question trying to clarify your wishes, and you get soooo cooonfuuuusssed!

And you want me to STFU? You got it, kid.

[Cisco]

@Zoe

And you want me to STFU? You got it, kid.

Thanks! Mostly an F) response but I get that little bonus of E) at the end. I’ll take it.

[DrDeth]

@Zoe

I did read your thread. All forty-eleven long, unorganized posts. And there, buried under all of the whiining about how you shouldn’t be expected to know anything and we shouldn’t trust noted experts and you should be allowed to pull down answers out of thin air, were pieces and parts of an answer. It was as clear as the fog in your eyes…

Exactly. But I will bet he honestly thought his answer was there and to him it was clear as a bell. It wasn’t.

Just like his “offer of a deal” where if I am wrong I have to grovel, but no mention of what he’d do if he was wrong- methinks Cisco has the concept of “a deal” all wrong. Hint, dude- they aren’t one sided like you think they are. Or maybe he just thinks he can’t ever be wrong. :rolleyes:

I do sort of feel sorry for him, however. He likely thinks he’s very smart and expressive, but for some reasons others- us “certifiable dicks”- just can’t understand his magnificant brilliance- likely due to our low intelligence.:dubious: He then takes solace in throwing around profanity at random and childish personal insults, as if somehow that will make us respect him. After all, it worked with his mother when he threw those temper tantrums, right? Psst, dude- “attention” is not the same as “respect”.

Sad, really.

[Cisco]

@DrDeth

Exactly. But I will bet he honestly thought his answer was there and to him it was clear as a bell. It wasn’t.

Funny how everyone else got it.

@DrDeth

I do sort of feel sorry for him, however. He likely thinks he’s very smart and expressive, but for some reasons others- us “certifiable dicks”- just can’t understand his magnificant brilliance- likely due to our low intelligence.:dubious: He then takes solace in throwing around profanity at random and childish personal insults, as if somehow that will make us respect him. After all, it worked with his mother when he threw those temper tantrums, right? Psst, dude- “attention” is not the same as “respect”.

Sad, really.

:rolleyes: “Weasel”, “slow”, “giblets for brains” and jabs at my mother aren’t personal insults? You’re a huge hypocrite, DrDeth.