That it? Don’t want to say something about my Momma?
(emphasis added)
This is a succinct and incredibly profound argument to this particular moral issue (as well as many of the ones we currently face regarding a personal right to privacy). Who knew an 'ole DFH had it in him? 
Hats off, 'Luci.
A link is not automatically a cite.
It’s not a cite, except in the sense that it demonstrates that not every link is a cite.
On the other hand, if we were arguing over the claim that a ruffed grouse is a partridge, it would be a cite.
A “cite,” refers to a citation to an authority supporting the proposition advanced by the rhetor. A link that does not connect to an authority that supports the proposition is not a cite.
Yeah, I know what a cite is. Do you know what a joke is?
Do you need a cite or something?
A cite is a link in message board speak in that it a shortcut for writing “hyperlink.”
Cite and link are often used interchangeably and mean, “look here for more information.” Most of us get that a link is a hyperlink to a citation.
Lawyers, on the other hand, have this OCD desire to put all words in long columns and not allow any cross-column contamination. Damn good thing lawyers aren’t required to approve all words published in the dictionary. If that ever happens, we’ll all be grunting and pointing instead of talking.
But that’s not important right now.
Well, she didn’t let her baby grow up to be a cowboy, so I think she’s OK.
The legend is that young Sam Clemens fell into the river and effectively drowned, but was rescued and revived by heroic effort. They brought him to his mother who seemed amazingly unaffected by the brush with tragedy. She said “A child born for the gallows need not fear water”.
Do most of you understand that a link that does not connect to relevant information is not a cite, even if the words are otherwise used interchangeably?
That’s not what you said. You said, “a link is not a cite.” Not, “a link that doesn’t contain relevant information is not a cite.”
Of course you weaseled out later with, “a link is not automatically a cite,” but your petard had already been hoisted by then.
This is true. A link may or may not lead to a citation. But when someone says “Link to story” we all know that they are referring to it as if it was a citation.
Yeah, sure, but citation does not necessarily mean “proof”. I will sometimes link to an opinion, knowing and acknowledging that it is an opinion. Perhaps because it is so well-worded and argued, for instance, or because the writer is so widely admired.
We could easily adopt a definition of “cite” to mean an authoritative opinion or an objective fact. And everything else are just “links”. This at least would satisfy those who have a mental pickle up their cerebral butts, and simply cannot proceed in discussion without having all terms explicitly and precisely laid out.
Kinda like that guy in beer and pizza talk fests who takes in your intelligent and acute argument, ponders for a moment, and starts in right off with “Well, first, lets define your terms…”
And takes everybody over the river, through the woods and all around the houses, relentlessly struggling to create a set of terms most favorable to his argument. Which he hasn’t even made yet! I swear, remember one such guy, all I could do to restrain myself from slamming a beer can down his throat!
But I didn’t. That was an accident, he tried to walk downstairs while drinking a beer. A daunting prospect for a moron, he should never have attempted it.
All well and good in the abstract theoretical sense, but c’mon, we can acknowledge that Trinopus was talking bollocks and that there’s no there there when it comes to the specific thing he’s complaining about with respect to what a cite is. Right?
Like it’s not actually any kind of depraved casuistry to accuse him of having not cited the thing he’s objecting to having been accused of not citing; it’s just a thing that’s true.
It varies, depends, and can differ according to context. Also, there are such things as “partial cites,” one of which I offered. I pointed to “Terra Magazine, the magazine of the Los Angeles Natural History Museum.” That isn’t complete, but it is a legitimate cite, pointing to an existing source which is available for inspection.
If someone says, “I heard it on the news last night,” that’s partial. If they amplified, “It was on CBS 2 on their six o’clock report,” would you still reject it because they don’t explicitly say, “The air time was 6:17?”
We’re all a lot dumber for having to read an argument about what a cite is for two days. Shut up, Trinopus.
Yes, can we please get back to defiling Scalia’s corpse? I came up with a completely new concept in necrophilia at breakfast this morning.
Oh, fer fucks sake. This whole sidetrack about what a cite is makes **Bricker **think he proved that Scalia was not a bully who inappropriately belittled petitioners, took favors from those who were represented before the court, trolled, and was always super-consistently a strict-constructionist until he needed to find that a corporation was a person.
Please drop the defense of the bad link.
Putting cream cheese on a bagel and it just came to you?
The more friend Bricker can focus on trivialities, the more he can keep up his delusional belief in his own unassailable logic. Take the voter ID thread for instance. He’s clownfarted through that thread for years.
You’d think that, if someone were worried about people focusing on trivialities, he’d stop introducing so fucking many of them.