A different kind of Fort Hood thread

[DaShi]

Wikipedia is more reliable than a handfull of certain so-called "newspapers."

[DaShi]

So you'd trust me editing wiki over the Canada
I quoted a source, not me, who I believe to be reliable. You may not find them reliable, that is fine. You, however are biased against conservatives, and that makes you unreliable when assessing the reliability of sites you believe are conservative.

But you're a right-wingnut conservative. Asher is at least moderate. If there's any bias, it is by you.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Wikipedia is more reliable than a handfull of certain so-called "newspapers."

QFT

[Asher]

So you'd trust me editing wiki over the Canada Free Press? Ok.

I'd trust a wikipedia source because I can see WHO edited it WHEN and WHAT THEIR SOURCES ARE to judge for myself.

The Canada Free Press is a known terrible source with a heavy bias and agenda.

So because a source which you purport to be 'conservative', that makes them unreliable? This, asher, is called bias.

I don't PURPORT them to be conservative. IT IS IN THEIR ****ING SITE TITLE: "Canada Free Press: online conservative newspaper"

They don't even PRETEND to be a reliable source of news. It's an openly-biased politically-slanted tabloid site.

I've already stated why I believe wiki to be unreliable, and it has nothing to do with the content, but everything to do with the inherent weaknesses associated with wikipedia. But again, since you aren't an arts major, I would presume you were unaware of these weaknesses. You want to be laughed at in serious scholarship? Go ahead and cite wikipedia.

FORUM DISCUSSIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE ACADEMIC RIGOROUS Papers.

If you cite the Canada Free Press or the Northeastern US Intelligence site, or whatever, that's not going to fly either.

When I'm listening to you, I have to go by what people say about themselves as the highest gage of bias. When you claim conservative sites make them unreliable, that means I have to take all of your claims with a grain of salt. It's like listening to Stalin about capitalism, the only thing Stalin is valuable for, is a reliable source on himself, not on capitalism.

HOLY ****ING ****.

I did not start this thread. Elok started this thread, and I answered the question. I also cited a source which I consider to be reliable demonstrating AQ connections.

The source is NOT reliable, and you have on right or knowledge to claim it is. I didn't say you started this thread -- you did start others and hijack more yet, though.

Now, if you have a problem with this claim, I want to hear you say it. Do you doubt this man had AQ connections? Yes or no.

Stop being an epic ****ing douche. I can question the integrity of obviously bull**** sources without having the omniscience to say whether something is definitively true or false.

Again, I would rather rely on primary or secondary sources, when available. Yes, I can view the changes, but again, we are relying on people who have 3rd hand sources, we do not know who they are, etc. etc. etc.

Wikipedia is inherently unreliable as a source. This isn't seriously questioned by anyone who does research.

Wikipedia is not peer reviewed. Peer reviewed means that the identities of those doing the editing are known, and that their credentials can be established. Wikipedia does not allow either.

I cannot believe how ****ing stupid you are sometimes, Ben.

This is NOT A TOPIC OF ACADEMIC RIGOUR.

Wikipedia is commonly sited IN FORUMS because you CAN see WHO added WHAT when. No one has EVER claimed here it is a DEFINITIVE SOURCE. But to outright deny and discard anything quoted by wikipedia is retarded. If you QUESTION it, you can view the wikipedia page to see who added what and when. You can also look at the citations -- THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCES. If there ARE NONE, then you are correct that it would be worthless information.

But the problem is WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT CITATIONS is exactly the same **** as you citing sites with clear and obvious agendas, AS YOU ALWAYS DO. These are people with NO primary or secondary citations -- or if they do, they're people who are pushing an agenda and cannot be relied upon to tell the whole truth only.

I quoted a source, not me, who I believe to be reliable. You may not find them reliable, that is fine.

What the flying **** makes them reliable? They even admit to bias themselves.

You, however are biased against conservatives, and that makes you unreliable when assessing the reliability of sites you believe are conservative.

Holy ****ing ****, epic logic fail.

WHY CAN WE NOT BAN BEN KENOBI?

[Ben Kenobi]

But you're a right-wingnut conservative. Asher is at least moderate. If there's any bias, it is by you.

Clearly, you don't get the concept that everyone has bias. Yes, I am biased, and so is Asher. We all do.

I believe this source is reliable on this claim, that the man had AQ connections. That is why I cited it. If I didn't believe this source was reliable here, I wouldn't have cited it.

If you have a problem with the claim, I suggest you do something other than brand the source 'conservative'. If I were a liberal, I'd be ashamed at the arguments coming out here. Branding a source as 'liberal' does not make it wrong.

I really don't give a fig about whether asher believes a source to be 'right wing' or not, and just because a paper is to the right of Stalin, doesn't make it 'right wing'. Just because Asher believes a source to be 'right wing' doesn't make it so either.

[Asher]

What the **** gave you the impression that the source was reliable?

The fact that it validated your own biases?

And for **** sakes, it's not whether I BELIEVE them to be right-wing -- THEY CLAIM THAT IN THEIR TITLE.

Just as you wouldn't trust a PROUDLY COMMUNIST news source from China, you shouldn't trust a PROUDLY CONSERVATIVE news source the west.

[Wezil]

WHY CAN WE NOT BAN BEN KENOBI?

He's the village idiot and every village needs one?

[DaShi]

Clearly, you don't get the concept that everyone has bias. Yes, I am biased, and so is Asher. We all do.

Yes, but you made the claim that only Asher was biased.

I believe this source is reliable on this claim, that the man had AQ connections. That is why I cited it. If I didn't believe this source was reliable here, I wouldn't have cited it.

You cited a wing-nut homosecurity site. It is hardly a reliable source. It cites itself as a sources and then misrepresents another.

If you have a problem with the claim, I suggest you do something other than brand the source 'conservative'. If I were a liberal, I'd be ashamed at the arguments coming out here. Branding a source as 'liberal' does not make it wrong.

I didn't brand it as conservative. I, like Asher, branded it as a joke or ridiculous. It is conservative, however.

I really don't give a fig about whether asher believes a source to be 'right wing' or not, and just because a paper is to the right of Stalin, doesn't make it 'right wing'. Just because Asher believes a source to be 'right wing' doesn't make it so either.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd trust a wikipedia source because I can see WHO edited it WHEN and WHAT THEIR SOURCES ARE to judge for myself.

Then why bother with the wikipedia article at all? Just go to the original sources. That's my point. Wikipedia is useful as it helps you find reliable sources, but the actual content of the article is useless as a citation in itself.

The Canada Free Press is a known terrible source with a heavy bias and agenda.

So sayeth Asher. I could say I find the "Old Gray Lady" to be the same, and I suspect you'd be arguing I am biased.

I don't PURPORT them to be conservative. IT IS IN THEIR ****ING SITE TITLE: "Canada Free Press: online conservative newspaper"

Again, why are conservative sources 'unreliable'? This is bias. Whether a source is 'conservative' or 'liberal' is no indication of 'unreliability' in and of itself.

They don't even PRETEND to be a reliable source of news. It's an openly-biased politically-slanted tabloid site.

Wow, ok. So then a site which claims to be 'fair and balanced' is inherently accurate? Or maybe liberals are the only ones who are accurate. This is a very good indication of bias on your part.

If you cite the Canada Free Press or the Northeastern US Intelligence site, or whatever, that's not going to fly either.

Do you find their claims to be questionable on this issue? I don't. I find their claims square with everything I've read and seen and heard so far, which is why I cited the article.

The source is NOT reliable, and you have on right or knowledge to claim it is. I didn't say you started this thread -- you did start others and hijack more yet, though.

You've been hijacking this thread into a discussion on the reliability of the Canada Free Post, and Wikipedia. If you want to accuse me of facilitating your hijack, fine, lets go back to the topic at hand.

Is this man an AQ terrorist? Yes, or no? I think there's pretty solid evidence that he was at the very least influenced by the same Imam frequented by the 9-11 terrorists.

Wikipedia is commonly sited IN FORUMS because you CAN see WHO added WHAT when.

I don't care. Quote the original cited source. You can ***** and moan all you want, cite the original source, not wikipedia.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes, but you made the claim that only Asher was biased.

Where did I use the modifier 'only'? Never have, never will.

You cited a wing-nut homesecurity site. It is hardly a reliable source. It cites itself as a sources and then misrepresents another.

Is their information on this matter incorrect? Do you have another source which contradicts the information found here?

But that doesn't change the fact that it is.

Does branding a paper as 'liberal' make it unreliable.

As for the tabloids, didn't they break the story about John Edward's mistress? Just because you do not like a source, doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong.

[DaShi]

Do you have another source which contradicts the information found here?

I don't need one. I have a brain and am able to see that they have not supported their case. Maybe if you had one too. . .

[Asher]

Ben, you are truly the dumbest "person" I'd ever met. By a landslide.

You are, quite seriously, mentally retarded. You have zero analytical ability, zero reasoning ability, no capacity to accumulate wisdom or knowledge, and to top it all off you're a religious bigot.

[Wezil]

I picture him as a grinning imbecile.

[Asher]

Just for fun, stop dodging and tell us all about your rigorous analysis which concluded that your source was reliable.

[Wezil]

You should stop engaging him. It can be the only reason he won't go away.

Just mock and insult.