On the use of quoted material versus throwing down links to support your position...

Hi ATS,

I just want to make one thing clear so that inexperienced members don't misunderstand the need to provide sources in support of their comments/ arguments/ position. Posting links alone is rarely adequate, because it potentially does nothing at all to fully support your position. The use of links as a supposed response to a challenge of your position can also be misused nefariously, because posting a bunch of links potentially does nothing at all to support the argument/ position, though it DOES give the appearance of respectability/ credibility (because it appears you've done your homework & worked hard to build & support your argument) while quite possibly the links themselves actually point to a humungous pile of BS junk that means nothing, is out of context, or lacking in truth at a core, fundamental level - designed to deceive whilst simultaneously giving the appearance of trying to 'fact check' actual truth. Amongst other tactics.

I would like to make a suggestion to the regular ATS crowd, and especially the flood of newbies who seem to have joined recently (Whoop!) This site is awesome because it's the only conspiracy site where free discussion can be conducted with (mostly) civility & decorum, in an organised way, on a pretty user-friendly website (when the bugs are worked out). NB - Site owners, we need the facility to embed alternative video sites other than YouTube please.. When it comes to this issue of falsifying evidence by using the tactic of throwing down links instead of directly addressing the point of contention, I suggest instead that anyone posting information from resources which they claim support their point of view, would actually extract text from the site / page which they've linked to, highlighting it IN THE ATS THREAD ITSELF, as demonstrated below:

Within quote tags such as [ex.][/ex.] or [quote.][/quote.]

NB - without the periods, remove those for efficacy.

The reason I say this should be obvious.

If you want to insert some specific truth that you feel supports your argument, don't be lazy or disingenuous, cut out a comment from the source which supports your argument directly & effectively, then we'll know that you're serious about informed debate, and you're not just a bad actor throwing down links which give you an air of respectability (remember, lots of links LOOK impressive when taken together in a single post), when in fact there is no substantial evidence or support for your argument in the linked sites/pages. If they actually support your argument in data or commentary, post a quoted section of text, or an image of a chart or graph, and prove your point in the text of the thread itself, so everyone can look & see clearly just what it is you're trying to say. It only takes a few seconds to accomplish this, so I don't see how anyone could argue against this strategy for proper informed debate here on ATS. Then you can add the link, safe in the knowledge that you are a serious debater who is supporting his arguments effectively & reasonably, demonstrating exactly why you have taken X position on a particular matter.

I would hope that other members feel that this matter of demanding quoted text or the posting of graphs & charts (when the image upload page is working) would be an appropriate standard that we can set for ourselves, to improve the quality of debate on these boards.

If we could be guided by this principle in constructing & defending our arguments, then ATS would experience a revival of proper informed debate instead of the pathetic tactics used by some, throwing down mostly useless links as some supposed sort of response to the challenge of their position. We need actual facts, real data & formal conclusions/opinions written by credible scientists, journalists (independent preferably, or MSM if you must) & leaders in business & politics - not links to fact checking farms (all owned by Facebook & factions of the CIA), or overly biased, deliberately disingenuous tripe, contrived by lunatic liberal bloggers in some woke new age cult, or MSM Barbie & Ken dolls spouting the latest MK-Ultra mind control programming.

Cheers, FITO.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I got bitched at because I was hoping to get people to use the "a reply to" at the beginning of their posts so we could tell they were talking to someone or just throwing out a general post. When you don't know someone is responding to someone in a written word it's hard to understand the context.

Good luck with your utopian vision.

There may be members who bring with them habits they acquired elsewhere.

I found many of my experiences outside ATS to be great disappointments.. Many people post one-liners, apparently assuming that quick wit, memery, and brevity to be the approved style of communicating...

I don't have to tell you that at ATS we value complete thoughts, and such 'drop a link' posts defies the idea of the expression of the members thoughts.

This is a reflection of the way "comment sections" and 'chat' style communications have molded the way people online talk to one another.

I imagine the disconnect this way; imagine if you were conversing with someone, and suddenly they stop talking and thrust a YouTube video in your face, waiting silently as you watch it... once done they say "There!" as if it had been "they" who made the point. It doesn't really work, does it?

ATS is about dialogue and debate (insofar as people are capable.) There is nothing wrong with posting media that makes a point or is of interest... but for goodness sake tell us why before assuming that we are going to feel obliged to 'watch or listen' to someone else's production.

I agree that a more uniform way of speaking to each other makes a more fruitful experience, and link dropping (or one-liners) are precisely what we should avoid... bearing in mind that there are exceptions to every rule, and not everyone does it belligerently, or with intent to shirk the social contract.

Your advice is sound.

But patience engenders harmony... and we are nothing if not patient.

a reply to: Maxmars

I use the get what you give approach.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Brilliant OP mate.

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

I've always taken this as a sign of passive aggressiveness or attempting to create the perception that because there has been no counter response(nobody notified) there is no counter response.


I find it's mostly liberal minded folk who do this, with a few exceptions.

I often use the nonspecific "reply" when I don't want anyone specific to feel challenged by my post, or singled out by anything negative in my post. And I usually reserve the "reply to" a specific poster when I want to engage, ask a question, or hope tho hear a specific point of view...

But clearly we are not all on the same page at all times, and then there are the times I may respond without giving the difference it any thought... so

Hopefully communication, like life, 'finds a way."

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I got bitched at because I was hoping to get people to use the "a reply to" at the beginning of their posts so we could tell they were talking to someone or just throwing out a general post. When you don't know someone is responding to someone in a written word it's hard to understand the context.

What you're talking about is the first and most basic component of how to properly reply to others during written (email and/or user forums) debates, and is something I've been complaining about with respect to email since time immemorial - there's nothing worse than trying to deal with lazy Outlook top-posters when debating point by point. Sane email and/or forum debates absolutely require one to engage in what is called 'in-line' replies, where you quote the point (and only the point) you are addressing, make your rebuttal, then quote the next point you are addressing, rebut, wash rinse repeat. Of course the very first thing you should do is include WHO you are replying to, as I did above and as is the default when clicking the 'quote' button when replying here on ATS.

As for the main complaint in the OP, the fact is, those on here posting just links in rebuttal to detailed arguments filled with supporting data (and there are too many of them) are doing precisely what the OP is complaining about and with which I wholeheartedly agree - either being lazy (I've been guilty of that a few times), being disingenuous, being flat out deceitful, or in some cases just trolling.

The problem is, you actually have to have a sincere desire to actually debate concepts based on rational thought, but there are some people on here that just have no desire to engage in honest debate. Also, it takes a little extra work to edit and format the reply so that it is readable (and correct), and that is something that some people here will never do because their only intention is to troll create the illusion that they have something to contribute and/or are smart, as opposed to the truth that they are just lazy slaves of the system.

Good luck with your utopian vision.

It isn't really a utopian vision, it is just basic common sense, really.

originally posted by: Maxmars
I often use the nonspecific "reply" when I don't want anyone specific to feel challenged by my post, or singled out by anything negative in my post. And I usually reserve the "reply to" a specific poster when I want to engage, ask a question, or hope tho hear a specific point of view...

Nothing wrong with that but you should also use the 'quote' function when you want to address one or more specific points, and quote each point separately as you address each one - as I'm doing here. Of course, this requires you to manually add the quote and /quote tags for each one, not hard, but does take a tiny bit of effort.

originally posted by: 19Bones79
a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

I find it's mostly liberal minded folk who do this, with a few exceptions.

I'd have to agree, but some people are just not very computer literate, and don't know how to properly inline quote (manage text/quote tags).

a reply to: tanstaafl

It isn't really a utopian vision, it is just basic common sense, really.

Sorry, that came off a bit strong. It just bugs the hell out of me when people put "a reply to" at the end as it just derails the debate when I have to go back and read what someone wrote to someone else because they couldn't tell me in the first place. Like in a real conversation when someone knows they are being "responded" to, FFS!

This ain't rocket science or brain salad surgery, if I can figure it out then anyone can but some seem to just not care.

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
a reply to: tanstaafl

This ain't rocket science or brain salad surgery, if I can figure it out then anyone can but some seem to just not care.

Oh, I agree, I didn't mean that those 'less computer literate' couldn't figure it out, but they would need to expend a lot more effort than the more computer literate to figure it out. I figured it out so long ago (back in the AOL 'You've got mail' discussion forum days) that I can't even remember if I did it on my own, or someone yelled at me...