Coronavirus politics and news.

:clap:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posada20

In other words only sources that YOU approve of .

---

No in your words! They are general guidelines, no where does it say I approve or disapprove. These are independently agreed upon guidelines. I prefer scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books. NOWHERE DOES does it say or suggest my approval.

I should delete you post as baiting, but I'll let it go. I don't want to start off on the wrong foot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drt1010

Why the continued anger Nick? Why the need to assign blame? This virus, as you know, was highly contagious and not easily contained.

Let's take a look at what China DID do that our leadership failed to do. China immediately instituted extreme lockdowns and regional quarantines. By January, movement in and out of Wuhan was stopped. Those affected included “more than 60 million people. Flights and trains were suspended, and roads were blocked.” Next, many Chinese cities ordered residents to remain home, with about 760 million people so confined. Extreme limitations on human movement was employed. The infection rate dropped precipitously.

Their response was recognized around the world as swift, efficient and effective. We, in the US, on the other hand have become the butt of numerous jokes! We have the pres and his sycophant in Fla who won't even mandate state wide or national mask mandate!

---

Leet him live in the past with the outrage
It will solve nothing.
Should we ignore and forget it happened? No. Should we be angry at it? No. Move on. Deal with the present moment.

Some people cannot disconnect the emotion and the past situation. They erroneously, associate the emotion with an absolute meaning and feel without the emotion, the fact of that incident is lost.

Get three-ish sources if you feel your source is biased or is called out as such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drt1010

Things worth repeating, please keep in mind when quoting sources:

Here are some general guidelines.

Types of Reliable Sources

A reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence.

I prefer, scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books -written by researchers for students and researchers. Original research, extensive bibliography. Found in GALILEO's academic databases and Google Scholar. Anatomy of a Scholarly Article.

Trade or professional articles or books - written by practitioners in a field to impart practice-oriented information. Found in GALILEO databases. Some may also be found through Google or other search engine, but may require payment to see the full text. Beware of sources on the internet that look like trade/professional articles, but don't have reliable content.

Magazine articles, books and newspaper articles from well-established newspapers - written for a general audience by authors or journalists who have consulted reliable sources and vetted through an editor. Newspapers and magazines often contain both researched news stories and editorial/opinion pieces that express the view of the writer. It is important to be able to distinguish between them! Beware of sources on the internet that look like reputable magazines, and newspapers, but don't have reliable content.


Websites and blogs - can be reliable or unreliable, hoaxes or sincere misinformation. Researchers and other experts often use blogs as a way to share their knowledge with the general public, but anyone with computer access can do so too, to further any agenda they want. It's up to you to evaluate the quality of what you find online. Online news sources are particularly notorious for false information. Professor Melissa Zimdars of Merrimack College put together a document called "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical 'News' Sources" to help you read news sources with a critical eye .


Wikipedia - some entries are reliable, some are not - it's up to you to evaluate. The authors are anonymous, so there's no way to determine their expertise, or the expertise of the Wikipedia editor who oversees the entry. Wikipedia editors will post warnings if they think the entry has weaknesses. Wikipedia entries tend to be conservative, reflecting traditional views over newer research.

Also worthy of mention, https://www.factcheck.org/. Reliable fact checking service, a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. They monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Their goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.

---

That's fair Doc. There are no rules regarding what you use asl long as they are at least somewhat legit. The blogs are very untrustworthy. While you can find legit info, it's good to cross reference with other more solid bases of info.
Same with Wiki.

I also think we should be able to call out said source and the individual using it. You know, like if someone uses a citation from say a purely white nationalistic blog/website or (don't worry people or person who has done that) a super far left, ANTIFA style site.
We can educate each other on what is a decent source. We may not agree with the message but if the source is legit, it's all good and up for debate.

[QUOTE=Kinkotheclown;33537332]I’m impressed with him.
He wants to do his job and protect the people, first



Are you impressed that he lied once again, and foolish me fell for it? Turns out he was never invited to throw out the first pitch at the home opener. He made that up in his empty head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinkotheclown

That's fair Doc. There are no rules regarding what you use asl long as they are at least somewhat legit. The blogs are very untrustworthy. While you can find legit info, it's good to cross reference with other more solid bases of info.
Same with Wiki.

I also think we should be able to call out said source and the individual using it. You know, like if someone uses a citation from say a purely white nationalistic blog/website or (don't worry people or person who has done that) a super far left, ANTIFA style site.
We can educate each other on what is a decent source. We may not agree with the message but if the source is legit, it's all good and up for debate.

---

That is precisely what I intend as a "reliable" source. I don't give a **** if it's left or right, just reliable. Factcheck is a good unbiased source to run things thru.

My only issue is who is enforcing what is a legit source according to the guidelines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posada20

Spin it whatever way you want but in the end unless it’s a source that YOU approve of , you will dismiss it and call it invalid . Even when you are wrong .

---

Look Jorge, I have tried to be fair and honest. I have also been trying to avoid engaging you and your rhetoric. But I have limits. I will not stand for you or anyone questioning my honesty or integrity. This is a baseless claim that impugns both. Please provide evidence of your accusation otherwise you leave me no choice but to delete the post and infract for flaming, baiting and insults. Your move Jorge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drt1010

Look Jorge, I have tried to be fair and honest. I have also been trying to avoid engaging you and your rhetoric. But I have limits. I will not stand for you or anyone questioning my honesty or integrity. This is a baseless claim that impugns both. Please provide evidence of your accusation otherwise you leave me no choice but to delete the post and infract for flaming, baiting and insults. Your move Jorge.

---

Look I don’t even know you and I am supposed to take your word on what is a legit source ? If you are so hurt by the fact that I don’t trust the word of someone I only know on a message board , then that is your problem . And if you want to give me an infraction because I have a hard time taking strangers at their word then so be it . But that is who I am and I can’t help that . All I know is if I was a mod I would not go making posts claiming to know what is a reliable source and what isn’t when I already know not everyone will agree with me on that . As long as there are two different opinions here on this board you can’t possible expect everyone to not have atleast a slight issue with what you feel is a reliable source , especially when politics are involved

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kinkotheclown

That's fair Doc. There are no rules regarding what you use asl long as they are at least somewhat legit. The blogs are very untrustworthy. While you can find legit info, it's good to cross reference with other more solid bases of info.
Same with Wiki.

I also think we should be able to call out said source and the individual using it. You know, like if someone uses a citation from say a purely white nationalistic blog/website or (don't worry people or person who has done that) a super far left, ANTIFA style site.
We can educate each other on what is a decent source. We may not agree with the message but if the source is legit, it's all good and up for debate.

---

That's really a bad idea. The issue should be debated not the source.

Let's give an example.

Mother Theresa says 2+2=5
Adolf Hitler says 2+2=4

Adolf Hitler is wrong because he is evil personified.
No, Hitler is right because the statement is right. It matters not who said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posada20

Look I don’t even know you and I am supposed to take your word on what is a legit source ? If you are so hurt by the fact that I don’t trust the word of someone I only know on a message board , then that is your problem . And if you want to give me an infraction because I have a hard time taking strangers at their word then so be it . But that is who I am and I can’t help that . All I know is if I was a mod I would not go making posts claiming to know what is a reliable source and what isn’t when I already know not everyone will agree with me on that . As long as there are two different opinions here on this board you can’t possible expect everyone to not have atleast a slight issue with what you feel is a reliable source , especially when politics are involved

---

It's pretty clear and rather simple, a reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence. I don't care if it's left or right. What you fail to realize I am able to argue, debate and agree or disagree with an opposing view. You on the other hand are so entrenched you become defensive immediately . As I have said before, I may not agree with your pov, but I will always defend your right to voice it.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of the accusation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drt1010

It's pretty clear and rather simple, a reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence. I don't care if it's left or right. What you fail to realize I am able to argue, debate and agree or disagree with an opposing view. You on the other hand are so entrenched you become defensive immediately . As I have said before, I may not agree with your pov, but I will always defend your right to voice it.

I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of the accusation.

---

You expect me to believe that it was just a coincidence that you reopened this thread and made that long post about what a reliable source is , less than 30 mins after I made a post in the OT forum with a source that went against your opinion of China’s response to the epidemic 6 months ago? Come on you can’t expect me to think that wasn’t a subtle rejection of the source I used .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brett05

That's really a bad idea. The issue should be debated not the source.

Let's give an example.

Mother Theresa says 2+2=5
Adolf Hitler says 2+2=4

Adolf Hitler is wrong because he is evil personified.
No, Hitler is right because the statement is right. It matters not who said it.

---

I said that in the last sentence of what you bolded

What I also said is that someone posts something from an unreliable source, like a blog for a white nationality group, that source is up for debate

For example, someone posting that it is "common knowledge that blah-blah happened" and they use as their evidence, an opinion blog from a far left writer, yeah, that is fair game to dispute the source.

And to your specific example, for arguments sake,
Both parties mentioned say
2+2=5?
Both are reliable sources, for the sake of argument
We can debate and leave it as agree to disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Posada20

You expect me to believe that it was just a coincidence that you reopened this thread and made that long post about what a reliable source is , less than 30 mins after I made a post in the OT forum with a source that went against your opinion of China’s response to the epidemic 6 months ago? Come on you can’t expect me to think that wasn’t a subtle rejection of the source I used .

---

You have a wild and vivid imagination. I discussed reopening the thread some time ago. The two are completely unrelated. In fact the "long" piece regarding reliable sources, I posted before in the corona politics thread, so in essence it was nothing new and a re-post as a reminder to everyone. You want to play the victim, go ahead. I know all to well it is baseless and a typical ploy you choose to employ.

Now about that accusation, any evidence yet? The clock is ticking.