Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 11th Nov 2012 12:48 UTC
Permalink for comment 541990
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-04-25
This sticks in my craw. I'm not making a "claim." If someone wants to engage me in an "argument," they better not be unaware of significant, well-established facts key to the argument. Moreover, if they do intend to question my "claims" they should do so based on some evidence of their own, not ignorance. It's just as easy (in fact, far easier) to say that it was darknexus questioning my "claim" without any evidence for or against this "claim;" therefore, it is his responsible to demonstrate the smallest iota of evidence to raise a question in the first place. The notion that any and all facts must be proven with x number of links if questioned by someone who is ignorant is pure silliness — every discussion would be a regression to complete idiocy, burdened by citation after citation. Certainly, you wouldn't like responding to every question asked of your unlinked "claims," particularly those which are factual.
Edited 2012-11-11 17:22 UTC