In all fairness to Lib, I did ask for a link to any corroborating evidence.
On the other side of the coin (still trying to be fair here) the link does seem rather broad.
“unintentional” = skewering of Lib (not implicit reference to other threads)
If it was just “Are links appropriate?” it’s a perfectly valid GD topic; everybody seemed interested in it on an academic level. But I can see how Lib could see it as a sneaky personal attack, although since I’ve wondered before about links in debates that I was more interested in debating that in a general manner than worring about any specific instances that may have inspired RT to post.
I think RT did not intend it to be a personal attack. But I think the apology was appropriate, because it can quite easily be mistaken for one. If I posted something and a few minutes later a thread popped up asking whether posts in my manner were acceptable, I’d darn well see it as a personal attack, too, no matter how innocently inquiring the OP might actually be.
Lib, sorry for making you feel like you were under attack here. I didn’t intend it that way, but I can see why you would have interpreted it as such. I should’ve exercised a bit more thought and discretion. Mea culpa.
LOL, I was actually thinking that RTF was talking about me, I’m so vain.
Anyhow, I do post a lot of links. As for using them, there are sometimes when the link states your position better than any words you may have.
I try to add my own little comment but like yesterday in Okay, for Non-Libertarians… I was simply stating that that article might be of interest, not much content in my post.
In addition, I posted a link to an environmental story that I did sum up, it was a huge story that pointed out the fact that commercial property owners are not the biggest polluters, our government is (as a rebutal to several comments. This was in one of the Libertarian threads.
Charge me guilty of linking with little commentary, but since this is a non-violent crime you can’t send me to jail.
< grin >
“…you probably think this post is about you, don’t you, don’t you?” 
Meanwhile, back at the OP…
I will use a link in a couple of cases:
(1) I am asked to produce a cite for something I assert.
(2) A cite says it better than I can.
(3) I am not talking about something I am not an expert in, but feel I have enough knowledge in which to have an overall opinion on.
For example, I am not a geologist. I do not know the intricities of carbon dating. I do know, however, that most scientists feel it is accurate.
When a Creationist says, “Carbon dating said that a molusk was 3,000 years old,” I know that the claim is misrepresenting carbon dating. But what is better, me saying it’s bunk, or me showing a scientist saying it’s bunk? (Not that that or anything else would get through the thick skulls of Creationists, but you get my drift).
Ultimately, I look at cites the way that I look at references in papers and other books. They should help augment your position and give readers a chance to see the source should they be so inclined.
Now, notice I said “augment your position.” A link by itself in a post does no good, and I recently said as much to a LBMB member who simply posted a link to the Constitution Party in a “Gun Control” thread and nothing else.
But I rarely see that here…
Yer pal,
Satan
Dirt
Dirtpile?
Somebody call Hoover.
Well, J. Edgar was always interested in amassing collections of dirt on people… :rolleyes:
Are you suggesting I should be swept under his skirt?
A fate worse than death! :eek:
Wow, this thread seems very promiscuous. First it flirts with the PIT. Then it propositions MPSIMS. I still think there is room for debate.
As [url=http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum7/HTML/001275.html]Satan{/url] mentioned, links which provide material to augment a position serve a purpose. Too often, though, I see people posting links as a substitute for presenting an argument on their own. I used to say that volume is a poor substitute for reason. I feel the same about links. If you cannot make the point in your own words, then perhaps you should not be making it. Obviously links provided for factual citations are a separate matter.
Speaking of which, if you must provide a link to your factual support rather than posting a quote please provide either a very focused url or a search string that will take us to the information. I find it annoying to follow a link expecting to see specific detail only to find myself on the front page to some behemoth of a site without any direction on how to find the relvant needle in the cyberstack.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
We are not limited by the
uniform rules of evidence here, but it does seem it would benefit us to have some common ground of acceptable levels of support vs. simple assertion. The issue is somewhat current, as our courts struggle with how much credence jurors should place in the newly emerging fields of DNA evidence, or voice stress analysis, or the much disputed evidence of polygraphs.
Here, though, we are not before a jury, but rather an audience. We do not have the limitations of formal debate rules, or the benefits of final decisions. We are “playing to the gallery” in some senses, and directly disputing another person, in some senses. So, a very indefinite criterion is involved. That criterion is made more exacting by the nature of the venue. We, the SDMB teeming millions pride ourselves on our unwillingness to simply take someone’s word for something. Evidence? Pah! We want, nay demand PROOF!
Mostly what we get is anecdotal report, and shared opinions. So, we give more credence to reports and opinions that are supported by available published sources. Oops. The World Wide Web supports every imaginable opinion, and reports some of the most unmitigated crap imaginable. So, we withhold our credulity and ask for reputable sources, and authoritative opinions. Yeah, those you don’t get for a dime a dozen! Thirty, maybe forty cents apiece ya gotta pay for dose babies!
If I say, in my argument that The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 meters per second. I might be more readily believed by anyone who respects my source. But the people who believe that that speed of light is only a recent value, which changed rapidly up until 1956, and then remained constant since, it is not going to make any difference if I direct them to more sources. They don’t accept my judgement on who is an authority. If someone tells me that Pi is equal to exactly three our difficulty is pretty much defined by our choice of sources. How they introduce their link is not the problem. However, if you don’t make your own point first, it is not likely that I will look at your link at all.
Personally, I put in posts which are nothing but reference to links to science news articles relevant to the topic. I don’t think most posters will find them all that interesting, but I know that some will. I let that happen on its own. I suppose that is partly because I don’t much care about winning the argument, I just like having the argument. Sometimes the journey is the destination.
<P ALIGN=“CENTER”> Tris </P> <HR>
“Advice is like snow - the softer it falls, the longer it dwells upon, and the deeper in sinks into the mind.”
– Samuel Taylor Coleridge
<FONT FACE=“Webdings” SIZE=5 COLOR="#ff2400"> ** - ** </FONT>
You took the wrd out of my mouth.
I accept your apology, RT.
Only Tris could make a post, prove his point by internal reference, and parody his own point at the same time with the same post! 