You seem pretty emotionally agitated about this. I'd say it's something you have no answer for; that it shoots down your religion, so to speak. Thus, you act like a lunatic, pontificating about how it is below you and you wouldn't waste your time on it. LOL! Without even reading it. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just attacked me on another thread, then admitted it doesn’t read my comments. These snowflakes are something else.
You seem pretty emotionally agitated about this. I'd say it's something you have no answer for; that it shoots down your religion, so to speak. Thus, you act like a lunatic, pontificating about how it is below you and you wouldn't waste your time on it. LOL! Without even reading it. LOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some people do not wish to waste their time on reading trash, then there is people like yourself where all they ever bother reading IS trash.
Just attacked me on another thread, then admitted it doesn’t read my comments. These snowflakes are something else.
How many times do I have to state the same thing, I don't read trash and most of your posts, if not all, are nothing of any substance and feeble attempts at insults aimed towards people smarter than yourself. Explain to me why I would bother reading your posts, aren't they all the same? I was only telling that person that they could just ignore you since you don't ever seem to bring anything of substance to any topics and only try to insult those of differing view points.
If you would like to prove me wrong, feel free to offer something of substance to any topic and perhaps make an attempt at not resorting to childish insults in EVERY reply. I don't see it happening but...
What is wrong with the content of the paper? It's reasoning? Its predictions of the future? Articulate your objections to it's content, rather than just bloviating and acting all superior, ignoring it's content.
It's author. Find one written by a credible author and let me know.
There are people smarter than me. You may even be one. However; you don’t prove it on OPP. Everyone’s sources are trash but yours. It’s the same on every subject you enter into. You are good at cherrypicking. You shouldn’t bother reading mine or anyone else’s posts who disagrees with you. You are incapable of civil discourse. Typical liberal. Most intolerant people in the world. Now go ahead and spew your trash.
Common_Sense_Matters wrote:
How many times do I have to state the same thing, I don't read trash and most of your posts, if not all, are nothing of any substance and feeble attempts at insults aimed towards people smarter than yourself. Explain to me why I would bother reading your posts, aren't they all the same? I was only telling that person that they could just ignore you since you don't ever seem to bring anything of substance to any topics and only try to insult those of differing view points.
If you would like to prove me wrong, feel free to offer something of substance to any topic and perhaps make an attempt at not resorting to childish insults in EVERY reply. I don't see it happening but...
How many times do I have to state the same thing, ... (show quote)
There are people smarter than me. You may even be one. However; you don’t prove it on OPP. Everyone’s sources are trash but yours. It’s the same on every subject you enter into. You are good at cherrypicking. You shouldn’t bother reading mine or anyone else’s posts who disagrees with you. You are incapable of civil discourse. Typical liberal. Most intolerant people in the world. Now go ahead and spew your trash.
Care should be taken to ensure that one's sources are factual. I have at times included less trustworthy sites in some of my posts but they are usually backed by many more factual sources and they just add "padding" to the more factual sources and I also try to remember to point out their trustworthiness, or apparent lack thereof. When it comes to untrustworthy sources, why bother reading them? Are they offering comedic relief? Do they offer some entertainment value to counter the fact that they aren't worth reading for factual content? If I wish to read fiction, it will at least offer some entertainment value or I am just wasting my time.
Care should be taken to ensure that one's sources are factual. I have at times included less trustworthy sites in some of my posts but they are usually backed by many more factual sources and they just add "padding" to the more factual sources and I also try to remember to point out their trustworthiness, or apparent lack thereof. When it comes to untrustworthy sources, why bother reading them? Are they offering comedic relief? Do they offer some entertainment value to counter the fact that they aren't worth reading for factual content? If I wish to read fiction, it will at least offer some entertainment value or I am just wasting my time.
Care should be taken to ensure that one's sources ... (show quote)
Sources that are factual, there are quite a few of them, Of course you will deny that any actual factual sites are indeed factual even though you would offer no proof that they aren't. It doesn't take much effort to discover the factual ones. Most can be ascertained just by reading their headlines. Typically speaking, the more salacious the headline, the less trustworthy the source but not always.
Politico is decent, as is Investopedia, I also read somewhat frequently from The Hill. Of course that is but a few of the sources I tend to read from. There are many others too. Much better than the trash many here read from.
Care should be taken to ensure that one's sources are factual. I have at times included less trustworthy sites in some of my posts but they are usually backed by many more factual sources and they just add "padding" to the more factual sources and I also try to remember to point out their trustworthiness, or apparent lack thereof. When it comes to untrustworthy sources, why bother reading them? Are they offering comedic relief? Do they offer some entertainment value to counter the fact that they aren't worth reading for factual content? If I wish to read fiction, it will at least offer some entertainment value or I am just wasting my time.
Care should be taken to ensure that one's sources ... (show quote)
So, based upon your logic, no liberal source should be read by us conservatives. Got it.
So, based upon your logic, no liberal source should be read by us conservatives. Got it.
No, based on my logic, only reliable sources should be read by ANYONE. The lean of the reporting is unimportant, the only important thing is the factual content of the articles.
No, based on my logic, only reliable sources should be read by ANYONE. The lean of the reporting is unimportant, the only important thing is the factual content of the articles.
Pretty much what I was thinking. I guess CSM is so brilliant it gets to decide what sources are credible. Typical liberal; if they agree with a viewpoint that is ideologically aligned with their own; said viewpoint is credible. If this person isn't a troll they should be.
Pretty much what I was thinking. I guess CSM is so brilliant it gets to decide what sources are credible. Typical liberal; if they agree with a viewpoint that is ideologically aligned with their own; said viewpoint is credible. If this person isn't a troll they should be.
It's a troll. If it wasn't a troll it would actually read things and be able to say why it thinks it is good info or why it thinks it's not. Tried don't engage in conversation. They just argue and contradict for fun.
It's a troll. If it wasn't a troll it would actually read things and be able to say why it thinks it is good info or why it thinks it's not. Tried don't engage in conversation. They just argue and contradict for fun.