Since we’ve been correcting him on so many issues and asking him to use google because the majority of posts are incorrect, and he still continues to just post like whatever vague and ignorant notion pops up first is gospel, how is this an accident?
4 Likes
I voted against Trump twice. I was nauseous when I woke up at 2 am in November 2016 and saw Americans were so stupid as to vote for him. I thought Americans have lost their minds.
But Trump is inspiring in one sense. He believes in himself despite being one of the most criticized people in the world
1 Like
Like Scrappy-Doo gone rabid?
Clinton would have been a terrible POTUS. Trumps policies were good for the USA and for the world. I was watching the Young Turks go into meltdown as the results came in, as well as talking heads on other shows who hated the fact Trump won the election. Let’s not forget the FBI and Clinton did their best not to let him become POTUS.
I just wished the democrat party chose a better nominee. Almost anyone else would have beaten trump but they chose Clinton of all people.
I have started 5 comments, and deleted 4 of them, as I concluded that they were not constructive to this topic.
3 Likes
Were they accurate?
It’s not, I guess. The hyperbole is though. Like in the thread where you said ALL American kids are depressed because they eat crap food. No, ALL American are not depressed because they are eating crap food. You tend to dismiss facts in order to make hyperbolic points in a game no one but yourself seems to be playing.
I do however enjoy and appreciate your attempts at humor these days. Hit and miss, but hey, tough crowd.
4 Likes
Yeah, I’ve noticed those too.
I would say so, just unnecessary, or they served my ego / sense of importance more than discussing the need/expectation [of] disciplined public congress.
3 Likes
Thank you for mentioning this. These generalizations are real groaners.
It’s not that it’s not a possible solution. It’s just not the best solution.
If somebody says some nonsense in a bar you do not criticize them for not first researching their statement. They are saying some shit that should obviously be taken with a grain of salt.
On the other end of the spectrum is Wikipedia.
I agree with TL that some threads on here could use a little salt.
1 Like
Wikipedia is managed and there is usually consensus, and facts agreed by most stays, it’s not perfect but it’s a good way to get an oversimplified version of the topic you’re researching about. It’s like Bohrs model of the atom, a huge oversimplification, and is totally wrong, but schools still teach it because it’s easy to visualize.
We can agree that nobody is going to write a dissertation based on forum posting, in fact Wikipedia would not be appropriate for even undergraduate level research paper.
So can we agree that we will make an effort to be correct but it will be an oversimplified and general fact. Means you take it with a grain of salt and confirm it with primary sources before using it for real.
I’m sure there is a line somewhere in the disclaimer.
The gap between your truth and the facts is a measure of your mental health.
1 Like
They teach it as something to subsequently build on that explains some aspects of atomic behavior and as part of the history of the development of the field, because it would be too complicated to start talking to students about wavefunctions and quantum mechanics and so on. It’s not - or shouldn’t be - presented as a fact, but rather as a foundation for explaining more sophisticated concepts.
It’s kind of different to writing something completely untrue and/or misleading just to get your words on the page and participating in the conversation.
I don’t think you’re really getting the point here. If you want to preface every statement with “this is probably wrong and I’m just making this up, but…” rather than presenting it as factual, then I suppose that’s fine by me.
Yeah, probably, but you said “the truth” rather than “your truth”, which is what I found confusing.
Anymore than if some guy at a bar starts talking about wave functions and quantum mechanics, you’d likely take it with a grain of salt and not base your entire thesis on what some guy at a bar said.
If the guy turns out to be a researcher in the area you would probably do a formal interview with the guy, or read his published work, than take his word for it at a bar. Memory isn’t always reliable especially if what was said wasn’t recorded. Especially if the guy had a few drinks.
FFS, no
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254735438_Analyzing_Internet_Forums_A_Practical_Guide
5 Likes
If you’re researching social trends or socialogical phenomenon then researching internet forums is perfectly valid, but no one is going to write a paper about a medical procedure based on internet forums.