Pitting all those fuckers that ask "Cite ?"

Stop pissing all over some perfectly good posts because someone can’t produce a “cite” for a “fact” that is indeed a fact.

What, do you think we all live in fucking libraries?

Anyway. Not to say that citing isn’t valuable. It just seems that on the SDMB it’s getting to the stage with some people that if they can’t counter an arguement with any facts, they start asking for cites for each and every opposing comment.

Get over it. You don’t need a cite when you state that the majority of people in the world make their money honestly.

Jeez
:frowning:

No, but you are online and Google is your friend.

True, but it’s not the impossibility of getting the cite, it’s the unnecessary nature of being asked for the cite.

Cite?

Must… resist… temptation.

phew

Seriously, though, if you make an assertion, be prepared to back it up. Otherwise it’ll remain just that: an assertion.

I do agree, it can go OTT at times. “The sky is blue.” “CITE??!” followed by another post with a link to a Cecil article that shows the goddamn thing isn’t blue after all.

Care to provide an…example of this?

LOL :slight_smile:

You are probably right (nice to see a Dubliner being right, eh?).

But I still feel that it has gone too far in a lot of posts… that sky thing for a jokey example.

The cite thing can be bullshit, because you can “cite” bullshit sites.

Here’s my “Cite”. fuckers.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=228595

:slight_smile:

psst… Jjimm’s not a Dubliner…

and you’d do well to remember that us Dubliners are never wrong anyway.

In the instance you quote, I see nothing wrong with Kimstu asking for something to support Adaher’s confident statement that “Most rich amassed their fortunes playing by the rules”.

Damn straight ! I live in Dublin 8.

I don’t want to get stuck into this. If I did I’d go back to that thread and get a-postin’. I just thought it was a little unnecessary and smacked of someone who had nothing left to say.

Anyway…

my gripe is when folks will demand a ‘cite’ for an obvious hypothetical, such as:

Poster A (subject being, say, JonBEnnet Ramsey) “and you know, had she been black this story would have died down in seconds flat”.

Poster B “Cite?”

‘Cite’ often seems to mean ‘My ideology doesn’t agree with your fact, so please provide an author of your ideology so I can dismiss him - and you - as biased’.

I have often seen “cite” used as a convenient and easy way to derail an argument, by forcing the poster to prove every least assertion they make, or to make them prove a point that is only peripheral, or even totally unrelated to the subject at hand. Under those circumstances a polite refusal with an explanation about why it was done is the right thing to do.

Kimstu’s request for a cite for example, would be hard to respond to. Even if most fortunes concealed a crime, it’s pretty likely that the evidence of those crimes would be concealed. I suspect that Balzac was also speaking metaphorically here, and that the “crime” involved might be more in the way of an unethical deed rather than an illegal one. Adaher wouldn’t be likely to prove her contention, but that doesn’t necessarily mean Kimstu is right. It just means Adaher’s assertion is unprovable – as is Balzac’s.

Cite? :smiley:

I know I’m a blow-in for the next four decades, but I’ve been paying my taxes here for the last 8 years. Do I qualify for “honorary” status?

What I find amusing is the assumption that because it’s on the internet, that makes it a fact. There’d be more facts flying around if we did live in a library, rather than on the internet…
Cheers.

I can’t exit this thread without posting Aldebaran’s immortal “My post is my cite”.

Although I couldn’t explain why.

Regards,
Shodan