To clarify:
I don’t think people should present opinion in the guise of fact based on the notion that others can dispute it if they want. But I don’t see that this has been done in this instance, particularly as the opinions and facts are pretty clearly distinct.
well, Izzy I disagree w/you assesment, since in the thread specified, most of the selected quotes were the ones I’ve talked about here - IOW, the interpretation of the data presented as substantiation for their arguement.
The only other part that they pulled out of that page was the claim of the mayors etc. about the costs of making public (ie governmental buildings) accessible. I don’t deny that it costs, however, I believe that even w/o the ADA, the governemental units themselves would have been forced to make their buildings accessible under equal protection clauses. (how can you be equally protected under the law if you cannot access the same governmental resources?)
I would disagree. I see five quotes. The first is analysis, but was labelled as such by Sam (“Here are some of the drawbacks of the ADA according to the Cato Institute”). The second has 3 of 4 paragraphs factual (the other clearly labelled “Those numbers suggest” etc.) The third and fourth are factual. The fifth has some of both (the opinion part again labelled “The record so far indicates” etc.).
It’s important to note that the fact that you (or Kimstu) have been able to cast some doubt on the relevance or implications of the cited facts does not make the facts themselves “opinion” and unsuitable for GD. You will notice that I have cast some doubt on the relevance or implications of some of your cites, but I am not about to start Pit threads about your posting style or inability to debate ( 
). That’s what GD is about - debating the implications of facts. Have at it.
you don’t consider skewing the facts (like seperating the different kinds of disabilities for example, dismissing the greater bulk of them), crosses the line between factual and opinion?
what about the dismissing of the ‘most of these were resolved’ before court claiming that meant the claim wasn’t good? (in fact, I would argue that the company has a greater incentive to settle pre court if the claim was good)
Not at all - I don’t even see why you consider this “skewing the facts” - unless you disagree with the separation. Again, you are merely disputing the implication of the facts presented.
Well whether the quote is opinion or fact would depend on the term “administrative closure” - the CI seems to think it means closed for administrative reasons, not pre-court settlements. I have no idea if this is right - if it is not, you would seem to have a claim on the CI.
But frankly I find this whole quibble of yours puzzling, as, in looking through the linked thread, I cannot find any trace of the quote that you are disputing. Best I can figure, you looked up the CI link and found something there that you are now blaming on december (or Sam). 
The way the SDMB software seems to work is that even after you’ve posted, the thread will not get bumped up, nor will your name appear as the last poster until you’ve reached the “thank you for posting” screen. Significance is that when the board is slow, you may time out after your post registered but before you reached the screen, leaving the world none the wiser. Philosophical question: if your post is tacked on to the thread but no one is around to read it, have you posted at all?
So here’s a bump.
Shouldn’t this thread be in GD?
errr… it’s a thread in the Pit about a thread in the Pit, which was about a thread in GD. It got hijacked into a thread about cites in GD and now it’s been hijacked again, and turned into a thread about a thread in GD which leads us to the beginning of this sentence…
Confused?¿? I am!
Maybe it should be in GQ?