Originally posted by dfm65Except, she, unlike most other people, including the original post-er, quotes sources. Otherwise, you are correct. You must take all information as either correct or incorrect. However, you should determine within your own defined limits, what is true or not.
Well, ok, so you can provide sources that contradict the claims made by Bill's sources. So what? Why should anyone believe your sources more than they believe his? I think a double standard is operating here: on the one hand, Bill's original claim is subject to scepticism; on the other, the counterclaim is expected to be accepted uncritically. After all, sno ...[text shortened]... not - I simply do not know. But a random internet page won't convince me either for or against.
The key is: Are original sources quoted? Is this (random Internet page) source consistantly correct? I'd submit that I trust snopes and urbanlegends.about.com as counter-balances for the same issues.
Each one fulfills my criteria: Original sources are referenced, and the sites are consistently accurate, even when they are honest in not being able to determine the veracity of a claim, and especially when they can also verify that certain claims, though outrageous, are yet still true.
Still, if you must stick your head up a bull's butt to make sure the beef is fresh, or you must urinate on the electric fence to make sure it's live, I'll watch, record, and post the results on a random web page. :-) (and later have to deal with all the doubting Thomas's who dispute that someone actually did that in the first place :-)
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65Random internet page? Snopes is as close to a "definitive information source" that you'll find on the Internet regarding matters such as this. Not only do they do their homework (Barbara Mikkelson is one of the people who run the site by the way, something you could have easily found out), but the research materials used in the preparation of any particular page are listed in the bibliography at the bottom of each page so that readers who wish to verify the validity of the information may check those sources for themselves. The original list offers no such evidence.
Well, ok, so you can provide sources that contradict the claims made by Bill's sources. So what? Why should anyone believe your sources more than they believe his? I think a double standard is operating here: on the one hand, Bill's origina ...[text shortened]... t a random internet page won't convince me either for or against.
I understand that Bill was simply posting "food for thought" and perhaps my reply was a bit callous in its tone. I should have included an emoticon or moderated my syntax.
Finally, I am not presumptuous or arrogant enough to tell people what to believe, but skepticism in the face of verifiable facts falls into the realm of pig-headed obstinacy.
EDIT: Once again, I am at work and cannot properly address an argument of grammar vs. vernacular, so it'll have to wait for another time. By the way the article that bbarr references can be found here: http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1111/1811_302/72732951/p1/article.jhtml?term= and is well worth reading.
1 edit
Originally posted by Poison Godmachine1. I think we must allow Bill to publish his source(s) as well. Perhaps they will look as convincing as the two books cited at snopes (on the green Coke page).
Random internet page? Snopes is as close to a "definitive information source" that you'll find on the Internet regarding matters such as this. Not only do they do their homework (Barbara Mikkelson is one of the people who run t ...[text shortened]... 02/72732951/p1/article.jhtml?term= and is well worth reading.
2. Have you actually checked the books cited, to verify they actually say what snopes says they do?
3. Not everything published in books is true. If snopes said 'creationism is true', and cited some books available from Amazon to back up this claim, would you believe it?
4. History is written by the winners.
5. Have you read 1984 recently?
6. Ok, so Barbara Mikkelson is one of the people who run the site. I had assumed as much. So what? I repeat: WHO? (You might as well say: Santa Claus is the guy who brings the presents at Xmas).
7. Perhaps scepticism in the face of verifiable facts is pig-headed obstinacy, but the question at issue is: do we face verifiable facts here?
8. I also suspect the tone of my reply may have been a little strong.
😛
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65Alrighty, let's go point-by point.
1. I think we must allow Bill to publish his source(s) as well. Perhaps they will look as convincing as the two books cited at snopes (on the green Coke page).
2. Have you actually checked the books cited, to verify they actually say what sn ...[text shortened]... so suspect the tone of my reply may have been a little strong.
😛
1) To my knowledge, there is no source for the things on that list. It's been circulating around the Internet for a couple of years now. Wherever I see it, people have been very quick to point out the mistakes on the list, especially the Coca-Cola and horse statue ones. Snopes is generally the quickest way to point out these things, hence my use of it. I DO know for a fact that the horse statue one is false as I have been to Washington D.C. many times and the convention indicated is rarely followed.
2) Yes. Not all of them, as their source list is, at times, quite exhaustive. Admittedly, the sources I have checked are very few when stacked against the broad scope of the site. Perhaps the majority of the material cited is wrong, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to exhaustively research every detail. But, clearly, they do. Also, I have never come across anything (Web page or otherwise) that specifically contradicts any of the information presented on snopes.com.
3) Of course creationism is true! I read a book about it. It is the only book I have ever read and I take its words as gospel.
4) A bad cliche. History is written by everyone but the actual participants, winners or losers. I don't see what this has to do with anything.
5) I've read it twice. But not "recently" if that means anything to you.
6) I've known about this site for a very long time, and have read many interviews with her and her husband over the years, her name is familiar to me as someone who has a deep knowledge of the things she has researched extensively for the last seven or eight years. I am quite certain that if we debated some other topic, you could come up with a name I haven't heard of. That doesn't necessarily negate the validity of the source, though.
7) It is impossible to verify some of these things, like the one about monopoly money. But most of the others are easily verifiable, like the wilderness percentage of Africa and North America. For the remaining few, you need a somewhat credible source. As I said earlier, snopes is generally considered to be that.
EDIT: I think we should change the thread topic from "interesting" to "boring."
3 edits
Originally posted by Poison Godmachine1.It's obviously interesting enough to keep YOU coming back for more, sunshine...
EDIT: I think we should change the thread topic from "interesting" to "boring."
2.A person who is sure of his or her argument doesn't have to resort to this...😉
3.The thread may be boring, but what is interesting is that you now cite personal experience in your point 1 to back up you refutation of the horse statue convention. Also you admit that you have just taken the site at its word for most of its claims. You say it is obvious they have checked everything, but is it?
4. Remember Margaret Mead and her study of the sexual practices of Pacific Islanders.
5. Don't expect you to get this, but remember the 'Angry Penguins' hoax.
6. I could create a website containing exactly the same or similar but spurious material as snopes, sign it 'Barbara Mikkelson' and no doubt fool a lot of people. As i said in my original post, you only need to sound authoritative.
7.You haven't even come close to refuting my point 3.
8.Perhaps you are right about history. After all, Japanese history textbooks apparently teach that the US began WW2 (I admit my sources for that aren't any better than for any other claims made in this thread). Anyway, when was the last time you read about the Punic wars from the Carthaginian point of view? Napoleon's 'cliche' was probably more true when access to printing facilities was far rarer than today.
9.Which brings me back to: these days any fool can post stuff on the web, and it needn't be (and usually isn't) edited, vetted for accuracy, or authenticatable (if there's sucha word) - see
point 6.
10. You say you know Mikkelson as someone who has thought deeply about the issues she writes about - sounds just like the assessment of someone who agrees with her conclusions.
11.Perhaps
You will see
If I write
In sentence
fragments
Like misslead
12 Take it easy
13 Almost forgot - it's the Ministry of Truth and what they do that's relevant in 1984. I'm not saying that's what's happening, but it's interesting to think about how it could happen on such a fluid medium (at least, interesting for me). And that archive website doesn't make a scrap of difference...
😉
Well, to comment on some of the others:
> > > > In English pubs, ale is ordered by pints and quarts.
> > > > So in old England, when customers
> > > > got unruly, the bartender would yell at them mind
> > > > their own pints and quarts and settle down.
> > > > It's where we get the phrase mind your P's and Q's
This is either incorrect or inconclusive. I have read several explanations for this (internet urban myth sites and such) and it's not clear which one is correct.
> > > > Many years ago in England, pub frequenters had a
> > > > whistle baked into the rim or handle of
> > > > their ceramic cups. When they needed a refill, they
> > > > used the whistle to get some service. Wet
> > > > your whistle is the phrase inspired by this
> > > > practice.
I think the same is true of this one.
> > > > In Scotland, a new game was invented. It was
> > > > entitled Gentlemen Only Ladies Forbidden....
> > > > and thus the word GOLF entered into the English
> > > > language.
This is definitely not true. I thought this was just a joke and nobody believed it. It's a bit like 'Fornication Under Consent of the King' or 'For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge'. Google for urban myths and you'll see what I mean.
i havnt checked on this post for a while and i am amused with the amount of interest it has generated and banter between fellow RHP players. I am greatful for my clan leaders defence of my post but it is just a light hearted look at some trival points, of which some may or may not be true , lets just take it with a grain of salt and move on people 😏
Originally posted by billwesthoffto be honest, my intent wasn't to defend your posts...i'm just as sceptical about the claims made there. i just wanted to make a general point about the credibility (or lack thereof, rather) of many internet sources. but i agree, let's move on...
i havnt checked on this post for a while and i am amused with the amount of interest it has generated and banter between fellow RHP players. I am greatful for my clan leaders defence of my post but it is just a light hearted look at some trival points, of which some may or may not be true , lets just take it with a grain of salt and move on people 😏