[NCLUG] Re: "Green" power.

[John L. Bass]

There is also the small issue of how to avoid direct confrontation. One 
poster here was very angry in private about being called a "liar" by 
suggesting his competely false statements were not correct. Doing 
rebuttals with a direct set of citations in line with the false claims 
doesn't go over that well. Most of the time, I check facts before making 
statements (from my library or on the web), it would do well if fewer 
people pass on "facts" they can validate if challenged.

Sometimes, replies that are indirect, stating a very different set of 
facts which are easily checked with a simple google search by readers 
provides a much less offensive attack on posters that just got it wrong.

If however, the standard for NCLUG is to cite every claim of fact, I 
will surely follow that ... so that you can clearly challenge those just 
puffing smoke to do the same.

John

Jim Hutchinson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM, Paul Hummer <paul at eventuallyanyway.com>wrote:
>
>   
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> John,
>>
>>     
>>> The amount of almost purposeful disinformation is almost alarming.
>>>
>>>       
>> There are a lot facts in your response.  The wikipedia user in me is
>> screaming [citation needed] though.  If you're going to state that the
>> initial information is purposefully alarming AND inaccurate, I'd like to
>> see citations from non-biased sources.  Opinions matter to me, yes, but
>> when you present your statements as THE de facto answers, then I can't
>> just "take your word for it."
>>     
>
>
> As a high school media specialist I see all too often that young people are
> clueless about the quality of info on the net and how to discern fact from
> opinion or even true facts from purported facts. I for one would like to see
> at least a link to something that is the source for a claim whenever
> possible. If people do check facts then a like to the site they checked
> allows us to check that too and decide for ourselves if it's a source we are
> willing to accept as well.
>
> Now, I'm not saying that every claim needs this but when something is
> contentious or difficult a link or two would really help - and it's just
> good practice too. :)
>
> Thanks.
>