Maybe, just maybe, we should stop using social media as a source around here.

Author: iairishcheeks (9406 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:22 am on Feb 11, 2019

Buzzfeed and the rest are bad enough.

Replies to: Maybe, just maybe, we should stop using social media as a source around here.


Thread Level: 2

Ok, please list your acceptable and unacceptable sources.

Author: Cole (7379 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 12:23 pm on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

I usually get my news from here...

Author: iairishcheeks (9406 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 1:26 pm on Feb 11, 2019

And then 3 days and 5 threads later find out it was completely false and moot.

Thread Level: 2

Go Facebook yourself!

Author: TakethetrainKnute (15875 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:43 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 2

Now don’t make Cole angry.

Author: Frank L (32367 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 11:39 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 3

I think you've done a sufficient job on that.

Author: iairishcheeks (9406 Posts - Original UHND Member)

Posted at 11:43 am on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 4

Frank was admittedly wrong on two points in just one thread.

Author: Cole (7379 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 12:22 pm on Feb 11, 2019

I don't know why you think he's making me angry. I was just pointing out his mistakes so he hopefully can decide to become a better person.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 5

I think because I make you look like a jackass.

Author: Frank L (32367 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 12:56 pm on Feb 11, 2019

The point wasn’t whether twitter or the Beast was right in this instance. Never challenged that. The point is that you continually rely on such sources.

Also, the point wasn’t whether one poster suggested a hypothetical where Orange could have been involve with the Bezos leak . The point is in general no one believed that.


Thread Level: 6

I see my efforts failed. Sigh.

Author: Cole (7379 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 12:58 pm on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 7

I would read more, post less. You won’t look as dumb that way.

Author: Frank L (32367 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 1:47 pm on Feb 11, 2019

(no message)

Thread Level: 8

You were wrong 2x in one thread and yet you keep attacking me. You accuse Trump of this strategy.

Author: Cole (7379 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 2:11 pm on Feb 11, 2019

You are one of his secret admirers.

This message has been edited 1 time(s).

Thread Level: 9

I was wrong that you use questionable sourcing? I was wrong that nobody believed Trump hacked Bezos?

Author: Frank L (32367 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 2:35 pm on Feb 11, 2019

Conor cited a hypothetical that everyone including me laughed at.

Please, you continue to embarrass yerself. You seem to qualify for yer own term of a chucklesmog.


Thread Level: 10

The Buzzfeed article was confirmed, and you did say no one throught Trump was behind it, when Conor

Author: Cole (7379 Posts - Joined: Oct 15, 2012)

Posted at 3:41 pm on Feb 11, 2019

clearly thought so, and Jim B admitted that a lot of people did.
]
My help has been ineffective obviously.


Thread Level: 11

Confirmed or not, the source is BS.

Author: Frank L (32367 Posts - Joined: Sep 20, 2007)

Posted at 3:58 pm on Feb 11, 2019

You can never stick honestly to any topic. The criticism was that you regularly cite to unreliable sources such as twitter and buzzfeed. It wasn’t that one buzzfeed story wouldn't be confirmed.

You have also still not cited a single person who said they believed Orange hacked Bezos. Conor was speaking hypothetically.

You are just fundamentally dishonest such as when you cited to a poll that a majority of Americans supported a DACCA for Wall funding compromise for the premise that a majority supported the Wall. You do this regularly.