Tired of games


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    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?

    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.)


  • 2007 AAR League

    Prove it



  • As one of the 3…

    Yes, I ask for proof.

    I post links to references anytime I am asked, such as in the thread that included CIA prison deaths thread where I was asked to prove the DOD was the source of info regarding deaths… I did so with multiple sources.

    Being able to post some sort of link to back uo claims simply makes your arguments more viable.  If you can substantiate your claims, you are seen as being more rational, and your posts worth more consideration.  Without the ability to back things up… well, a lot of folks just dismiss you as irrelevant rantings.

    That is how I see it anyway.



  • Jenn - people ask for proof because they don’t believe your claims.  It’s not that we are all crazy, demanding, or want to knock you down.  You make an outrageous or obscure claim, never provide sources (or tell US to look for proof on YOUR claim), and tell us we are either too dumb or demanding to know the truth.  It happens again and again.

    If you can provide at least ONE source, then people wouldn’t be so upset.  But you fail to do so consistently.

    So the choices are:

    A - Provide proof.
    B - Don’t make a silly statement that is verifiably untrue.

    We only make demands that each of us are willing to do if asked.



  • I’m assuming I’m one of the three-

    ditto switch and jermo…Jen- if you didn’t make claims that were obscure/outlandish, people would probably take your word with fewer promptings for sources. everything you post on here is testimony. stupid is the man who accepts anything purely on testimony, unless it syncs with his background knowledge of the issue. most of what you post that gets calls for “source” is something that does not sync with most people’s background knowledge.

    post sources for your factual claims when asked, or dont make them. its your responsibility as arguer to source all the claims YOU argue. if someone else makes an argument and you question their source, ask for it. i know i will gladly post a source when asked for verification. the source doesnt have to “prove” you either, since even when you post all your sources, you (collective you) may still make claims that people disagree with. but with your source posted, we know where you got such ideas, and if we think they are wrong, we can tell you why rather than just say “you are wrong”

    so stop posting sources if you like, but thats just childishness/laziness talking.


  • 2007 AAR League

    Hmmm… I am the fourth member of the group of three  8-)

    I have nothing else to add.


  • 2007 AAR League

    I’m happy to post my references when they are available.

    I’m just as happy to explicitly identify my opinions.

    I do get frustrated when the responders don’t bother to check the references for the answers to their idiotic questions.

    I would be delighted if there were more people here who actually made an effort to provide references to support their statements.  Even if the sources are wacked out loony web sites, there is at least the begining of a conversation as opposed to some totally off the wall statement such as “Bush is just like Hitler”.  With the references there can be discussion.  With the wacked out statement, it is like someone took a fart in an elevator.  Do you point out that they stink or does everyone just hold their breath until the door opens?



  • @Soon_U_Die:

    Maybe if you weren’t a liar and a plagiarist…

    Wow.  I completely missed where she claimed it for herself/group.

    P.P.S.  Did you miss me?

    I actually did wonder what happened to that snarky SUD guy.  :lol:



  • I had caught one of the earlier cut and paste jobs on another of her “essays”, but I had not bothered to search this one.

    All I can say is WOW!

    Twice now, definitive proof of outright plagerism on Jen’s part in posting articles to this site without credit to the original authors.

    I have to correct a previous comment I made regarding re-taking Political Science Prob Stats…
    NOT POSSIBLE, this student would be EXPELLED for two counts of plagerism: one in Math, one in Political Science.
    :mrgreen:

    (did any of y’all click on the sources link on the website above to see the sources the actual author used?  Exactly the same, down to the formating, abbreviations, spacing, and even the division of articles and the numbering not re-starting at 1 for the second set of sources…)

    BUSTED!


  • Official Answers 2007 AAR League

    @Scarface:

    I haven’t studied this thoroughly, however it seems that Jennifer is getting ganged up on by a wild pack of liberals! I wish I could help a fellow conservative. Why is plagarism a sin on this site? I’m drunk now, so just tell me to shut up!

    Where isn’t plagirism a sin?



  • There is nothing wrong with taking someone else’s words and presenting them. The problem comes when you present them as your own. You just took credit for someone else’s ideas- even if you had similar ones of your own- no one knows your ideas, because you cut and pasted someone else’s. You’ve done very little work to present ideas that someone else probably put a lot of work into, and you tacitly take the credit by not giving the credit to the person who did the work. Despicable.



  • Because it is an intellectual fraud.

    Jen made claims that “none of us could understand her reasoning” when she went into her zero rant, when it turns out that SHE can’t explain it either.  She just did a cut and paste from 2 guys published article (which by the way is a CRIME, and because it is a CRIME can result in the plagerist being banned from this website…)

    But forget the criminal ellement for a minute…
    She used an intelectual LIE to try to claim superiority over everyone on these boards, and she got CAUGHT.  And now, instead of trying to lord her superior knowledge, those of us who have dealt with Jen for a logn time have effectively just placed her and any of her arguments into the trash can.

    The one thing I will say now though…
    Her assertion that zero has a polarity may be correct in this case…
    Jen has ZERO credibility left.
    And in that case, zero definitely has a negative polarity.
    :mrgreen:



  • That’s why it’s just better to come up with your own sh*t.  If you HAVE to quote someone else, make sure to give them credit after all is said and done.  Like, when I repeat a joke my roommate told me to some other friends of mine, and they all laugh, I feel obligated to let them know who told me.  (Now, I doubt that my roommate would SUE me for not crediting him here, the concept is still the same…  😉)



  • I wish i could remember the bizaare “fact” that Jen had generated about Canada.  When i challenged her on it using actual sources from historical pages, her source was her grade 3 teacher. 
    i laughed and laughed . . .


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Prove that I ever quoted my 3rd Grade teacher.



  • @Jennifer:

    Prove that I ever quoted my 3rd Grade teacher.

    I think that may be the least of your worries.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @Jermofoot:

    @Jennifer:

    Prove that I ever quoted my 3rd Grade teacher.

    I think that may be the least of your worries.

    You mean unwarranted, inflamatory attacks is the least of my worries?



  • I find quite often that someone has said before more eloquantly and more famously something that i believe - often i will quote this person and either reference them, or hope that it is well enough known that i don’t have to bother quoting them.  When i hear/see a bizaare, likely untrue fact that i think lends credence to my argument, if i use it, then i will cite the source if i can find it again.  Occassionally someone “known” has similar opinions to me coincidently and i do not believe that i borrowed from them - in this case i tend not to quote.
    @Jennifer:

    @Jermofoot:

    @Jennifer:

    Prove that I ever quoted my 3rd Grade teacher.

    I think that may be the least of your worries.

    You mean unwarranted, inflamatory attacks is the least of my worries?

    well,
    it is just one of a number of warrented, possibly inflamatory, possibly an attack.  I guess unless i can pull the old post out of the pre-crash server, then i could demonstrate something that was just amazing to me and as i recall at least one other Canadian with any insight into history.  Given that the post does not exist anymore - i humbly retract my statement and issue a new one:
    Jen may or may not have quoted her grade three teacher and her bizaare take on Canadian history in the past.  if she did - it’s simply another piece of evidence on the ever growing pile.  If not i’m sure it doesn’t make any difference, but i would apologise if i believed that it never happened.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    Well, i thank you for the kinda apology.

    You don’t like a quote I pull out, or a source, fine.  That’s your perrogative.  I’m just tired of people demanding sources to validate sources because they don’t like the sources provided.  Or the fact I have to provide sources when I make a statement like “My favorite color is purple.”  And it’s really come to that.  So I’m only going to provide sources when I bloody well feel like it.  Since obviously we’ll only get into pissing for distance contests if I repeat the same assinine demands for multiple sources from every bone-headed leftist comment or rightist comment I challenge on these boards.



  • Or the fact I have to provide sources when I make a statement like “My favorite color is purple.”  And it’s really come to that.

    Prove that anyone ever asked you to source an obvious statement of opinion like “my favorite color is purple”



  • 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:

    1. internally lacks credibility
    2. lacks credibility based on the determined credibility of the poster
    3. is at odds with previously accepted information.

    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.



  • @Janus1:

    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:



  • @Jennifer:

    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.


  • 2018 2017 2016 '11 Moderator

    @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.


Log in to reply
 

Suggested Topics

I Will Never Grow Up Games

37
Online

13.5k
Users

33.8k
Topics

1.3m
Posts