quote:

Originally posted by occrider http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/nogas.asp

Its amazing how much faith people put in that website. It is the absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility.

This companies should REALLY push for newer technology on this issue.. ppl are still paying this prices for gas instead of looking for the better alternatives!! fucking research on it !

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Its amazing how much faith people put in that website. It is the absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility.

Faith? Is this the same kind of "faith" that people have in the theory of evolution? Because I completely ignored the fact that they did any research at all as evidenced by the Sources segment at the bottom of the site:

quote:

Sources: Davis, Michael. "Gas Boycott Lost on Drivers." The Tennessean. 1 May 1999 (p. E3). Deibel, Mary. "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say." The [Albany] Times Union. 27 April 1999 (p. A2). De Marcol, Donna. "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal." The Washington Times. 1 May 1999 (p. C11). Heaster, Jerry. "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty." The Kansas City Star. 30 April 1999 (p. C1). Howe, Kenneth. "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area." The San Francisco Chronicle. 1 May 1999 (p. A1). Sands, Aaron. "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas." The Ottawa Sun. 1 May 1999 (p. A4). Simmons, Cindy. "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump." Associated Press. 1 May 1999. Surman, Matt. "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change." Los Angeles Times. 1 May 1999 (p. B6). Associated Press. "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'" 1 May 1999. Calgary Herald. "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott." 1 May 1999 (p. E5). Indianapolis Business Journal. "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump." 3 May 1999 (p. B9). Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps." 1 May 1999 (p. B3). The Toronto Star. "Gas Boycott Sputters." 1 May 1999.

Or maybe I'm simply not privy to the mountain of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of a gas boycott that you are perhaps aware of?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Faith? Is this the same kind of "faith" that people have in the theory of evolution? Because I completely ignored the fact that they did any research at all as evidenced by the Sources segment at the bottom of the site: Or maybe I'm simply not privy to the mountain of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of a gas boycott that you are perhaps aware of?

You PDDs, always looking for a fight. Its a freakin website. People reference it as "Snopes says its true/false so there you go." Thus my observation: amazing.

Now give me your evidence for the efficiency of gas boycott. I have to go to the bathroom and I'm out of toilet paper.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 You PDDs, always looking for a fight.

"You PDDs" ... lol. Ummm well gee, this is a forum for debate. Was I not supposed to respond to your comment? It didn't look rhetorical.

quote:

Its a freakin website. People reference it as "Snopes says its true/false so there you go." Thus my observation: amazing.

Well people usually respond in that manner because whenever Snopes makes a true or a false determination, they comprehensively research the issue and post their sources to back up their determination. In the event they don't have enough evidence they use the undetermined tag. Is it a stretch of the imagination to believe that people can come to trust in a source that consistentely backs up what they say with evidence?

quote:

Now give me your evidence for the efficiency of gas boycott. I have to go to the bathroom and I'm out of toilet paper.

There is no evidence supporting the efficacy of a gas boycott, wasn't that the point of my reference? I'm afraid you'll have to use your hands.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider "You PDDs" ... lol. Ummm well gee, this is a forum for debate. Was I not supposed to respond to your comment? It didn't look rhetorical.

Yall have a way of jumping the gun when you smell that debate. I wasn't making any kind of reference either way to your stance on whatever topic this thread is about. I was making an observation about Snopes.

quote:

Well people usually respond in that manner because whenever Snopes makes a true or a false determination, they comprehensively research the issue and post their sources to back up their determination. In the event they don't have enough evidence they use the undetermined tag. Is it a stretch of the imagination to believe that people can come to trust in a source that consistentely backs up what they say with evidence?

Hmm. Okay? Thats a nice story. Again with the gun thing. I wasn't saying Snopes doesn't deserve the credit they receive. I just think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum. Who goes to the library anymore?

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yall have a way of jumping the gun when you smell that debate. I wasn't making any kind of reference either way to your stance on whatever topic this thread is about. I was making an observation about Snopes.

"Jumping the gun" has obvious negative connotations. In what way was I "jumping the gun" in responding to your post about snopes? I thought my response was quite relative and pertinent to your statement. Or was your statement above all recourse such that a response was completely unwarranted?

quote:

Hmm. Okay? Thats a nice story. Again with the gun thing. I wasn't saying Snopes doesn't deserve the credit they receive. I just think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum. Who goes to the library anymore?

Well based upon your statment, you were "amazed" with the "faith" people place on the content of Snopes. It certainly seems like a negative assessment to me. Especially when followed by a statment sarcastically depicting it as an "absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility." Of course, I haven't seen you provide any evidence that suggests we should be wary in trusting Snopes' fact checking abilities, sooo in what way am I jumping the gun? What does a library have to do with anything? Does the dewey decimal system afford a user with unbounded credibility?

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yall have a way of jumping the gun when you smell that debate. I wasn't making any kind of reference either way to your stance on whatever topic this thread is about. I was making an observation about Snopes.

Thank you, for that generalizing comment. Yes, we are all pitbulls just waiting for innocent victims to be thrown out way. So that leaves some interesting questions: Why would you keep posting in here, seeing as we have this horrible trait? You post regularly in here as well, so does that mean that you're jumping the gun, too? And if you do, how do you know that you didn't jump the gun, when you took offense in occrider's response?

LOL @ Josh!

If you take offence from debates, get the fuck out of this forum

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 I just think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum. Who goes to the library anymore?

The reason there is so much "faith" placed in Snopes as you put it, is because their articles are invariably well-researched, untainted by bias and they are always coldly logical in their appraisal of the issues. On the rare occasions where their facts and / or conclusions have been found to be wanting, the articles are updated and fault is admitted. While obviously it cannot be treated as the canonical authority on every issue it reports on, you can generally trust Snopes to cut through the bullshit and report accurately on the facts pertinent to the issue at hand.

(Oh, and welcome to the PDD. )

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by occrider "Jumping the gun" has obvious negative connotations. In what way was I "jumping the gun" in responding to your post about snopes? I thought my response was quite relative and pertinent to your statement. Or was your statement above all recourse such that a response was completely unwarranted? Well based upon your statment, you were "amazed" with the "faith" people place on the content of Snopes. It certainly seems like a negative assessment to me. Especially when followed by a statment sarcastically depicting it as an "absolute definitive source for authenticity and credibility." Of course, I haven't seen you provide any evidence that suggests we should be wary in trusting Snopes' fact checking abilities, sooo in what way am I jumping the gun? What does a library have to do with anything? Does the dewey decimal system afford a user with unbounded credibility?

You immediately started defending your opinions about the political issue and Snopes. I wasn't trying to refute them. I'm sorry you got a "negative assessment" from my comments, you should have asked for clarification first. I don't have any evidence people should be wary in trusting Snopes' and don't necessarily think they shouldn't. I think its interesting that today's world has progressed to the point where a website holds such caliber with separating veracity from bunkum.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The reason there is so much "faith" placed in Snopes as you put it, is because their articles are invariably well-researched, untainted by bias and they are always coldly logical in their appraisal of the issues. On the rare occasions where their facts and / or conclusions have been found to be wanting, the articles are updated and fault is admitted. While obviously it cannot be treated as the canonical authority on every issue it reports on, you can generally trust Snopes to cut through the bullshit and report accurately on the facts pertinent to the issue at hand.

Yes, I know. Thank you for re-stating for what has already been established. You PDDs are nothing if not vociferous. Do you think MisterOpus is going to get involved in this? I wonder how many sources he can quote.

quote:

(Oh, and welcome to the PDD. )

Thanks but I've been here for a while. I generally try to avoid you. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but... you smell.

quote:

Originally posted by josh4 Yes, I know. Thank you for re-stating for what has already been established. You PDDs are nothing if not vociferous. Do you think MisterOpus is going to get involved in this? I wonder how many sources he can quote.

Wow, you can be really mean when you're on the defensive.

quote:

Thanks but I've been here for a while.

Yes, I know. Consider this your baptism.

quote:

I generally try to avoid you. I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but... you smell.

Hey, you'd smell too if you never showered.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/