Jen - i have yet to see a demand for a source for an obvious opinion. My goodness - if that were true, then every post of yours would have “source please” replied to. All that is asked for is a source for information that:
What i see happening is someone submits a fact, with or without a source, you provide a (in my mind) bizaare and blatant contradiction, but you don’t support it with anything.
when people ask you for a source, they are giving you the opportunity to support your claims instead of dismissing them outright (which i have become increasingly guilty of doing with your posts - in fact when i look at a new forum, if i see that you are the poster, i tend to not even bother looking at the content anymore - same thing w/ BL or M36 or Zooey - as i know all i am going to see is some more unstantiative liberal bashing). If you wish to increase your credibility, have the grace to provide a source AND actually bother to cite it. If you want to be marginallized, then continue to huff that you don’t have to support your claims to someone of obviously limited education or do the work to support your claims, or submit other people’s work as your own.
Who do you trust the testimony of more?
The person who has an ideology in complete opposition to your own, but cites sources for any factual claims they make, and distinguishes between their commentary and the truth?
or
The person whose ideology is compatible with your own, but cites nothing that they claim, and interweaves commentary and truth?
Now switch the ideologies.
How about this one, who do you trust more:
The person who makes claims at odds with the general “consensus”, or generalized knowledge base, but cites sources for their argument, and backs up their claims with facts?
or
The person who makes claims in keeping with the general “consensus” or generalized knowledge base, but doesn’t cite anything?
Now switch the claimants.
Starting to understand why people ask you to cite sources?
If you are asked to cite a source, people aren’t saying you are wrong, they are telling you that what you just said does not fit in with their knowledge of the topic. Since no one here knows you personally (I assume) and can attest to your credibility or credentials (I’m not accusing you of posting false education credentials, but you easily could have, just as anyone else could), they have only two things to rely on to judge whether to accept your testimony: their knowledge, and your credibility. When what you say goes against their knowledge, they have to consider how credible you are. Many of us don’t consider you that credible, not in a small way due to the fact that you rarely cite your sources. When you cite your sources, you give people more information with which to consider your testimony and judge its credibility.
Who do you trust the testimony of more?
The person who has an ideology in complete opposition to your own, but cites sources for any factual claims they make, and distinguishes between their commentary and the truth?
or
The person whose ideology is compatible with your own, but cites nothing that they claim, and interweaves commentary and truth?
Now switch the ideologies.
How about this one, who do you trust more:
The person who makes claims at odds with the general “consensus”, or generalized knowledge base, but cites sources for their argument, and backs up their claims with facts?
or
The person who makes claims in keeping with the general “consensus” or generalized knowledge base, but doesn’t cite anything?
Now switch the claimants.
Starting to understand why people ask you to cite sources?
If you are asked to cite a source, people aren’t saying you are wrong, they are telling you that what you just said does not fit in with their knowledge of the topic. Since no one here knows you personally (I assume) and can attest to your credibility or credentials (I’m not accusing you of posting false education credentials, but you easily could have, just as anyone else could), they have only two things to rely on to judge whether to accept your testimony: their knowledge, and your credibility. When what you say goes against their knowledge, they have to consider how credible you are. Many of us don’t consider you that credible, not in a small way due to the fact that you rarely cite your sources. When you cite your sources, you give people more information with which to consider your testimony and judge its credibility.
Word. :mrgreen:
You don’t like a quote I pull out, or a source, fine. That’s your perrogative.
Actually Jen, what I don;t like is when you plagerize and do not attribute a source to the article.
THAT is against the policies of this board, and you have been caught red handed TWICE now (it is also called “copuright infringement” in case you missed it in the forum rules). You are OUT OF WARNINGS on plagierism Jen.
@cystic:
Jen - i have yet to see a demand for a source for an obvious opinion. My goodness - if that were true, then every post of yours would have “source please” replied to.
Have you checked recently? Every post does have that “source” demand in the reply. Every last one. Even when I provide sources you can go a page or two in and see the demand.
@ncscswitch:
THAT is against the policies of this board, and you have been caught red handed TWICE now (it is also called “copuright infringement” in case you missed it in the forum rules). You are OUT OF WARNINGS on plagierism Jen.
Great, so show me once instance of alleged plagerism from 2007. Yea, aint none, huh? I forgot a couple of hyperlinks in over 10,000 posts in over multiple years, that works out to barely a fraction of the area under a bell curve. Barely.
It is not a ratio Jen. It is a raw count, and there are two CONFIRMED instances in the past several months.
Three strikes…
And this one you went a bit overboard with when you called everyone else ignorant while you hid behind a plagerized essay.
In my personal opinion you went WAY overboard and owe several folks an apology… Jermo and RJ in particular
But that is just my opinion…
You may have all the opinions you want. It is MY opinion you are completely wrong.
Great, so show me once instance of alleged plagerism from 2007. Yea, aint none, huh? I forgot a couple of hyperlinks in over 10,000 posts in over multiple years, that works out to barely a fraction of the area under a bell curve. Barely.
Lets see…it’s ok because you haven’t plagiarized in 2007? LMAO :)
you didn’t just forget a few hyperlinks…you specifically lied and took credit for 2 professors work!!! LMAO :)
What next? But…but…bu…I haven’t plagiarized in 2 whole days now!!! Blubber, blubber…
SUD
Would you do that to an alcoholic who hasn’t drank in 2 days ?
@AJGundam:
Great, so show me once instance of alleged plagerism from 2007. Yea, aint none, huh? I forgot a couple of hyperlinks in over 10,000 posts in over multiple years, that works out to barely a fraction of the area under a bell curve. Barely.
Lets see…it’s ok because you haven’t plagiarized in 2007? LMAO :)
you didn’t just forget a few hyperlinks…you specifically lied and took credit for 2 professors work!!! LMAO :)
What next? But…but…bu…I haven’t plagiarized in 2 whole days now!!! Blubber, blubber…
SUD
Would you do that to an alcoholic who hasn’t drank in 2 days ?
I believe the parlance is “Tough Love.”
Oh yea, home of the Nigerian scams, that’s a good place.
Hmm, what was the alleged date of his post???
Like, this forum is copywrite protected so you cannot just highlight and paste in another forum that may, or may not have an accurate time stamp.
Anyway, sounds like SUD cannot win an arguement, so he’ll go on a Crusade, Jihad against a member of the board along with his little Moderator friend.
Sounds like they caught you red-handed for plagiarism, and you’ve got nothing to say to it but dodges…
Hmm, what was the alleged date of his post???Â
OMFG that is crazy. I know Jen has been saying for a while now that it’s like the whole world is out to discredit her, but I had no idea the conspiracies we so involved with plagerizing her and then adjusting time stamps to make it look legit. Be careful everyone else or the same thing could happen to you.
Jen, you’ve outdone yourself this time. LMFAO!!!
Jen, you’ve outdone yourself this time. LMFAO!!!
Really? Look at the date stamps. They’re almost identical. So how could I be posting it at almost the same time as this other guy? Hmm??? Interesting. Especially since I am engr.dr.samuel.adeniyi.ajanaku on that site. So I post, then post again.
March 15th for me
March 15th for that person
Difference? potentially a few hours, assuming the sites are actually set up with the correct time, which is doubtful, since one is a Nigerian and the other is in the real world that doesn’t scam people.
I have to remove your post as well as it does not add to the thread. I’m sure you will understand.
Anyone else getting tired of the same people demanding ungodly amounts of proof over and over again instead of just posting their own arguements? It’s almost like a concerted effort to discredit a person through incessent demands for proof instead of through facts and sources of their own.
Just seems a little redundant lately. No matter what you post, 3 people (the same three every time) will demand you cough up 30 sources they cannot impeach and then they’ll just say “you’re wrong” without posting a why they THINK you are wrong.
After all, who cares about the truth when all you have to do is say “you’re wrong, I’m right, and if you don’t think so, find a dozen sources to support your claim” then when they do, you tell them the sources are faulty and make them find sources to support their sources as not being faulty. This can go on forever without a counter statement from the people saying you are wrong.
So is that how you win debates now? You just keep demanding unreasonable demands until the person - who is correct - just tells you to blow it out your nose? That how some people feel superior so they can sleep at night? Does that take away the disgrace of being absolutely, and totally wrong in your ideology so you don’t cringe when you look in the mirror?
You cannot win in an online debate. You might hope to get some insight in how the other person is thinking. But that’s it. When I posted regularly on this board I was surprised, that there are Americans who actually think they won the Vietnam war. I’ve told this story multiple times since then, and the people here in Germany were quite surprised to hear that. And it’s very interesting to see, that even after the last 4 years, there are still some people around who think, Bush is a good president. If the scandal at Walter Reed didn’t convince these people otherwise, nothing I can say will.
Hmm, if that’s so, I feel sorry for you. Anyway, I don’t feel the need to post multiple sources for everything anymore. I think one source is all I’ll be posting. Spending way too much time on this with multiple sources being checked in quadruplicate. I actually got less then a 100% on my last math quiz. REALLY irked me. And it was something COMPLETELY stupid too. (I forgot the polarity on a variable. A mistake everyone has made at least once in their life to my knowledge. And no, I won’t provide a source for that unqualified statement.)
I really wonder what level of math you are talking about. Real math with proofs or just some higher calculus?
Just out of curiosity, I would like which of the following question you can answer.
Nah, we lost Vietnam because the Democrats, under the advisment of George McGovern I believe, ordered a surrender and an all out retreat to American soil where they proceeded to spit on our soldiers, call them baby killers, and deny them employment forcing them to become one of the largest segment of the homeless in this country.
If we had, instead, pulled Washington DC out of the war and allowed the soldiers to fight the war, we might have won. He may have still lost, but we would have had a much better chance if our soldiers in the field didn’t have to make contact with the enemy, call DC for permission to shoot at the enemy, wait 48 hours for a response and then move in only to find the enemy left 3 hours ago.
Over the past few weeks, I’ve learned to look past the games that go on with some posters’s temperamental, nefarious slogans. I’ve learned to look past some of the rancorous things the games that go on with some posters has said. I’ve even learned to look past its attempts to make life less pleasant for us. But I cannot stay silent about the games that go on with some posters’s incomprehensible and unforgivable audacity regarding a specific event that recently occurred. For openers, the games that go on with some posters is unequivocally up to something. I don’t know exactly what, but the facts as I see them simply do not support the false, but widely accepted, notion that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal. This is a lesson for those with eyes to see. It is a lesson not so much about the games that go on with some posters’s neurotic behavior, but about the way that every time the games that go on with some posters utters or writes a statement that supports plagiarism – even indirectly – it sends a message that the games that go on with some posters answers to no one. I assert we mustn’t let it make such statements, partly because unlike its harangues, my own warnings are not vague and undefined, but primarily because when it hears anyone say that my job now and for the immediate future – our job – is to celebrate knowledge and truth for the sake of knowledge and truth, its answer is to offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss. That’s similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to shed the light of truth on the evil that is the games that go on with some posters. Many people are convinced that the games that go on with some posters offers its emissaries a vehicle of sorts for their revenge fantasies. I can’t comment on that, but I can say that it keeps saying that at birth, every living being is assigned a celestial serial number or frequency power spectrum. For some reason, the games that go on with some posters’s serfs actually believe this nonsense. According to the latest scientific evidence, that fact is simply inescapable to any thinking man or woman. “Thinking” is the key word in the previous sentence. As a parting thought, remember that the games that go on with some posters’s nettlesome insults are fraught with the gravest consequences.
ahh now a much quicker,thoughtful, and effective discourse!
Nah, we lost Vietnam because the Democrats, under the advisment of George McGovern I believe, ordered a surrender and an all out retreat to American soil where they proceeded to spit on our soldiers, call them baby killers, and deny them employment forcing them to become one of the largest segment of the homeless in this country.
If we had, instead, pulled Washington DC out of the war and allowed the soldiers to fight the war, we might have won. He may have still lost, but we would have had a much better chance if our soldiers in the field didn’t have to make contact with the enemy, call DC for permission to shoot at the enemy, wait 48 hours for a response and then move in only to find the enemy left 3 hours ago.
I told you, I find this point of view quite interesting. There was a similar point of view in Germany after the first World War which is now called “Dolchstoßlegendeâ€.
P.S.:
I wonder why you don’t respond in the Real Fuzzy Math thread.
@Loquacious:
Jennifer, you can’t post crap like this:
(Then again, more people were murdered by firearms in Chicago that day as were at V. Tech, I guess since they chose to be in a poor neighborhood run by street gangs, they deserved it where as these fine, upstanding, rich kids did not…. :roll:)
And just expect people to believe it. Apparently, you do this sort of thing quite often. I don’t see how, with a straight face, you can complain that people aren’t taking you at face value.
Chicago Crime Rate .org
Feb 16 (Nothing more recent unfortunately)
16 First Degree Murders
7 Involuntary Manslaughters
9 Justifyable Homicides
6 Recklass Murders
2 Second Degree Murders
Total Murders in Chicago on 2/16/2007: 40
In one day, more people are murdered in the city of Chicago then died at Virginia Tech to the mass murderer - Cho.
In one day, more people are murdered in the city of Chicago then US Soldiers die in Iraq, on an average day.
It doesn’t look like your website - chicago crime rate . org even exists.
In 2005, there were a total of 448 homicides in Chicago - less than 2 per day. See number 19 in this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cities_by_Crime_Rate
I don’t believe your statistic and you haven’t backed it up with a verifiable reference.
SS
