Post by True Patriot on Dec 5, 2016 22:11:04 GMT -5
Yes it is true...I believe if you are going to accuse others of making unprovoked attacks in nearly every post and if you are going to insinuate that others are posting false facts then you should demonstrate what evidence you have to support your assertions.
It is also true that sadly such a sensible requirement does not seem to go over well with many members or the staff.
Oh wait!...I see...You extended my remarks for me.
How gracious of you.
Fine enough...
You give no examples of anything that I have said that you dispute the validity of.
You can't be bothered to look up a few of my claims or you haven't found the false ones yet?
Instead you want people to question the facts I present simply because I oppose your views unless I can cite some 'authoritative' source.
As if posting on a forum is some sort of rigorous academic exercise.
Like it really has mattered anyway...Please.
You won't even accept the prima facie evidence that I presented showing that Hillary Clinton committed criminal acts.
I have provided more primary source evidence then any other members to include yourself since my joining this forum and yet you give the impression that the opposite is the case.
It seems rather obvious to me that it is not the absence of sources that is the issue, but rather the nature of the facts presented.
I'm fairly certain that if I posted claims of facts that buttressed your positions that there would be no challenge from you.
What are the sources that you cite as evidence?...Snopes...The Atlantic...Esquire...PleaseCutTheCrap.com?..LOL
Those are opinion sites.
PleaseCutTheCrap.com is a 'good' source?...The name speaks to its credibility.
I don't dispute that Snopes and some other fact check sites can be 'good' sources but they are no better than any other opinion site. If I or others can show where they have not met their self-described mission to provide accurate, objective and unbiased analysis then they should be called on it.
Those who claim to support the truth should agree.
You act as if you occupy the high ground but I don't see how that could be viewed to be the case if you were not a member of the staff.
This is just an attempt to tell the casual observer to turn away so they won't question the approved narrative.
Nothing to see here folks...Just some wacko that refuses to see the Emperor's new clothes...Move along.
Despite Sysop being perceived as inherently superior due to his staff position, the intellectually honest members of this forum should take the time to compare the true nature of our posts and the evidence that we each present to support our positions to determine which of us is more credible.
Just look at the efforts being made to prejudice, bury, misrepresent and impugn those who take the time to actually provide primary source evidence to support alternative views as opposed to opinions dressed up as fact that fit the mold.
As far as I can tell from Sysop3's brief post, the only thing he "accused" you of was failing to supply sources, True. Your reply is paranoid. Please try to pull yourself together. (a request)
As I said in the above post I have posted more primary source evidence to support my positions than any other member since my joining your forum.
There is no reason that I should be held to an even higher standard than the standard I have set for myself that exceeds those observed by others.
Need links?
The implication that he is trying to make is obvious and misrepresents the nature of my posts.
I don't make things up and represent them as facts.