This is a public service announcement. Just because you watch a ten second blip about something on the news does not mean that you are an expert on that subject. If all you know about a topic is something that you learned while listening to one of Bush’s “life is a snowflake” speeches, then please do not attempt to portray yourself as someone who knows what the hell they are talking about. If you are talking to someone who is an expert in the field (any field), please feel free to challenge what they say. Ask all the thoughtful questions you want. But for love of all that’s good and pure, DON’T argue with simple scientific fact by uttering the words, “but USA Today said…” Get the fuck out of my face and go read a book.
It had a good beat and you could dance to it. I give it an 8.
BTW, what are you, some kind of sadist? Telling Gollum to “go read a book”? Shame on you, don’t you know it hurts us, precious, ow ow ow, it hurts us, just to read USA Today?
Hey, I’m not trying to say I’m more intelligent than the rest of the world-- I like the brief version of most news myself. I’m just saying don’t look at a pretty picture of a space shuttle and then tell NASA engineers they don’t know what they’re talking about. Look at the pretty picture and then go back to clipping your toe nails, because you still don’t know jack about space shuttles.
On the other hand, if you don’t read newspapers or watch the news, or do anything to actively pursue information on current affairs, then don’t engage me in a debate about politics, taxes or the WTC event because I’m not going to believe the facts and figures you’re sprouting. I’m going to think you made them up. Like when you said there were 100,000 thousand dead in the WTC.
A ten second blip still gives you a better grounding than figures made up on the fly.
So many good sig opportunities these days … anyway.
To add to the list: getting an email saying “X” does not make X true. Just because the email says that Nostradamus predicted the WTC attacks doesn’t make it true any more than me emailing you to say I am Pol Pot makes that true.
There once was a guy named Pol Pot
Who thought he knew a hell of a lot
After reading the USA Today
Informed theories he would spray
That were about as truthful as s’not.
I agree, I agree, just recognize the limitations of your knowledge, and then I won’t feel the need to punch you in the nose.
I mean, ok, you can get a pretty decent picture about the types of things you mentioned from the news. I guess what’s really been pissing me off lately has been people’s positions on scientific subjects that they really don’t understand.
Yes, the 10 second blip, the minor article in the back of newsweek, the extra-credit class you had 10 years ago do make you marginally more qualified to discuss various topics, but they do not make you an authority, and your POV is by it’s nature less valid than that of someone who studies it/lives it/is it.
Just to shove my way onto the soapbox :D, it extends to other things besides politics and current events, like, oh, say, the arts and music.
The trick is to recognize when someone IS more knowledgeable than you are, and to accept that you don’t know what the ::checks forum:: fuck you’re talking about relative them.
Obviously not. It’s religiously listening to Morning Edition and All Things Considered that makes you the Most Informed Person Alive.
[ul][list][list][list][list][list][list][list]
Signed,
Podkayne,
Most Informed Person Alive,
and NPR Junkie
[/ul][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list][/list]
[sub](Oh, yeah, gimmie some uh that Noah Adams action, baby.)[/sub]