You didn’t need to check “every other fucking page,” you goddamned moron, you only needed to check the very page you linked to. It’s plenty full of anti-Semitic hate.
Are you so stupid that you don’t even bother to glance at the very page you’re citing to as a source?
See, a “citation” is supposed to SUPPORT your assertion. A link to a reputable news source like the AP, the BBC, Reuters, the NY Times, The Washington Post does that. Even if the story they give turns out to be wrong, we know that these institutions have an interest in providing the truth. They aren’t perfect, but they try. Most small town newspapers are the same way, but they are difficult to use on an international forum like this since most readers don’t know their reputation.
On the other hand, Stormfront, David Duke, the Klan, Art Bell, the CPUSA, Pat Buchanan, the Raelians, the Maoist International Movement and Scientology are NOT useful citations. Why? Because we have no way of knowing whether what they say is true or a lie. Yes, people like that post the truth on their websites all the time. But the truth is always mixed in with the lies. Unless we already know what the truth is, we have no way of telling whether they are lying or truthful when someone like that says that Phil Donahue had good ratings.
If the Associated Press has a story that Phil Donahue had good ratings (or at least not terrible ratings), then I tend to believe it unless I have good reason not to. That’s because the AP has a reputation as a reliable source of news…they don’t typically post lies on purpose.
If Pat Buchanan or someone like him says that Phil Donahue had good ratings, but the Jews forced him off the air because he didn’t support the Zionist war against Iraq, I tend NOT to believe the story, unless it is confirmed by a trustworthy source.
See the difference? If you had posted your second set of links there would have been no problem. Now please, just admit you were wrong, you made a mistake by not checking out your supposed source.
Um, Rense isn’t on the left-he mentions feminism as the downfall of America.
I also know he’s friends with JanL. Remember that guy?
Well, when you get out on the fringes it’s hard to tell the difference. Maybe he is right wing. But it seems that the “kook” strain is more predominant than the “right” strain, if so. I know he hates Bush…maybe he hates him from the right. Anyway, right, left, gay, straight, up, down…the point is that Rense is the Anti-Cecil. Linking to him is like dumping a bag of dog feces on the floor during dinner conversation.
rjung, buddy, quit while you’re behind. Although your assertions about Donahue’s ratings appear to be backed up by an AP report, it really really doesn’t look good to be citing a hate site to back up your case. A “Yikes! Sorry about that – here’s another site” would have been a much more graceful response.
This article, while not on a Site of Record, also isn’t on a loonybin site either, and appears to give a good rundown of the situation.
I think this is a case where attacking the messenger is perfectly appropriate even though the message may contain some truth.
Daniel
And his organization – the Paul Revere Society? Just another version of the Klan. I’ll bet that patriot is spinning like a top right now.
Shrug Like I said, it was the first link returned by Google, and I didn’t do more than skim the main article to verify it was an applicable site.
In any event, I still don’t completely agree that the “inappropriateness” of a site necessarily means everything posted there is automatically invalid as a result. If the Flat Earth Society’s web site has an article accurately documenting J.S. Bell’s experiments with electron spin, I think it’s perfectly acceptable as a cite, too.
Whatever. The point is that people have no good reason to suspect that the Flat Earth Society does, in fact, accurately document those experiments even if they do. You’d have to post a secondary citation from a trustworthy source that the posted information is, in fact, accurate even though it was on a kook site.
The bottom line is that if people have no reason to trust the linked citation, the citation is worthless. And if you have to provide a citation that the citation is correct, perhaps just posting the second citation is the best course of action.
Not to mention that posting information from a Klan knockoff website makes you look like a dick, whether the Klan has accurate information or not. Neo-Nazi hate websites are somewhat different than harmless Flat-Earth kook websites, no?