Misinformation

[A Can of Man]

You know I was really disappointed at the Democratic party for their behavior and misinformation campaigns when Bush was in power.
I'm also really disappointed at the Republican party for their misinformation useage with a Democrat President in power.
Seriously guys... how can you ever believe that "OUR SIDE GOT IT ALL RIGHT AND NEVER MADE A MISTAKE!!!"???
Remember that your party gets it right and your party also gets it wrong. You have to be fair about it or else the value of the words from your mouth are meaningless propaganda.

 

[The Other Guy]

You know I was really disappointed at the Democratic party for their behavior and misinformation campaigns when Bush was in power.
I'm also really disappointed at the Republican party for their misinformation useage with a Democrat President in power.
Seriously guys... how can you ever believe that "OUR SIDE GOT IT ALL RIGHT AND NEVER MADE A MISTAKE!!!"???
Remember that your party gets it right and your party also gets it wrong. You have to be fair about it or else the value of the words from your mouth are meaningless propaganda.

Welcome to America. You'll get a Prozac when you give us proof of insurance.

It's just the way it is anymore, and it all started with the smear campaigns of the 1980s. I admit my side has made mistakes (supporting Segregation, for example) but it's my constitutional right to b*tch about it, and damn you if you're going to stop me!

 

[A Can of Man]

Well it's not just America.
Just saying... we should be better.

You should check out the hard core misinformation campaigns here. Those are epic!!!

 

[major liability]

If I were as loaded as Bill Gates I'd run an intensive ad campaign for Nobody for President 2012 that costs more than the other candidates' combined.

This type of manipulation is pretty standard in this country. Repeat the same lie enough times and some people will believe it. I met a kid who actually believed Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 as late as 2008.

 

[A Can of Man]

I swear... Michael Crichton got it right. It's not the information age. It's the misinformation age.

 

[The Other Guy]

I swear... Michael Crichton got it right. It's not the information age. It's the misinformation age.

During the 1984 election, I believe it was, one of the big newspapers ran a poll asking whether or not voters would vote for a man who had been divorced to be president. The results were very one sided: 94% said that they would not.

The next, week, they re-elected Ronald Reagan. Just goes to show how much we don't know or choose to ignore.

 

[Chukpike]

During the 1984 election, I believe it was, one of the big newspapers ran a poll asking whether or not voters would vote for a man who had been divorced to be president. The results were very one sided: 94% said that they would not.

The next, week, they re-elected Ronald Reagan. Just goes to show how much we don't know or choose to ignore.

This is an excellent example of probable misinformation. You have only made a statement and if we except without supporting sources, we are excepting it as fact. Without supplying sources, it is nothing more than something you believe to be true.

A number of people on these forums get very upset when asked to supply a source. Sources give evidence to support a persons statement and add credibility. The more sources supplied and the more credible the sources, the less likely that misinformation is occurring.

 

[A Can of Man]

Good find actually this one.

We know that he was divorced:
http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b4reaganronald.htm

Can't find anything on a poll regarding voting for a divorced President for the 1984 Presidential election.

 

[The Other Guy]

This is an excellent example of probable misinformation. You have only made a statement and if we except without supporting sources, we are excepting it as fact. Without supplying sources, it is nothing more than something you believe to be true.

A number of people on these forums get very upset when asked to supply a source. Sources give evidence to support a persons statement and add credibility. The more sources supplied and the more credible the sources, the less likely that misinformation is occurring.

I find it rather difficult to quote news radio or a newspaper (and I don't mean the website) so... yeah.

Boy, did you ever miss your calling in politics.

 

[A Can of Man]

I feel ya TOG. The problem is a lot of the sources I know are actually personal.
As with Chupike anyway, if you say you drank water in front of the Lincoln Memorial, you have to provide the molecular formula for water and sufficient proof that it is drinkable (and that you would survive drinking it) and that you actually had a drink on that particular day and in that particular location (I guess by holding up that day's newspaper or showing your cell phone with the date clearly visible with a local landmark behind you).
And maybe DNA evidence and something else for that matter to prove that it wasn't a body double and some sort of guarantee/evidence that the newspaper and the cell phone screen were not photoshopped in any way. Also that the background is in fact, not a blue screen job.

 

[George]

I find it rather difficult to quote news radio or a newspaper (and I don't mean the website) so... yeah.

Boy, did you ever miss your calling in politics.

And, unless you can afford something like Nexus Lexus, a lot of stuff simply doesn't turn up in a search.

 

[A Can of Man]

Yeah. If your company or school has a subscription you're golden. For the average Joe though, it's kinda out of reach.

 

[Chukpike]

I find it rather difficult to quote news radio or a newspaper (and I don't mean the website) so... yeah.

Boy, did you ever miss your calling in politics.

The degree of difficulty in obtaining valid sources might require someone to get off their a** and away from their computer long enough to go to a library.

The current generation is so in love with the INTERNET that they probably believe that if it isn't on the INTERNET it never happened.

The INTERNET is the biggest advancement in supplying misinformation probably ever developed, with the possible exception of the development of language.

The INTERNET should be called "the misinformation highway". This does not mean that it isn't a good source of information, just that as the source of accurate information in will also accumulate inaccurate information at the same rate.

Your poll said 94% of voters would not vote for a President who had been divorced. That poll could exist. But was it accurate? Did it only poll married people or only married Catholics? Per this news source the divorce rate in 1980 was 22.6%.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-07-18-cohabit-divorce_x.htm

Does it sound plausible that you would get 94% of the voters to say they would not vote for a divorced President from these statistics? Is it even plausible you could get 94% of voters to agree on anything?

I feel ya TOG. The problem is a lot of the sources I know are actually personal.
As with Chupike anyway,you have to provide the molecular formula for water and sufficient proof that it is drinkable (and that you would survive drinking it) and that you actually had a drink on that particular day and in that particular location (I guess by holding up that day's newspaper or showing your cell phone with the date clearly visible with a local landmark behind you).
And maybe DNA evidence and something else for that matter to prove that it wasn't a body double and some sort of guarantee/evidence that the newspaper and the cell phone screen were not photo-shopped in any way. Also that the background is in fact, not a blue screen job.

If you had bothered to read the forum rules you would know that "he said, she said", are not valid sources.

Your above example is just to divert away from the topic of misinformation.
First I would not need to prove water existed or that it was drinkable. Whether it was poison or not does not matter. Also the date does not matter as nothing in the statement mentions the date.

Your example: "if you say you drank water in front of the Lincoln Memorial,"

I would only have to provide sources that supported two things.
1. That I drank water
2. That I was in front of the Lincoln Memorial.
A valid picture of me drinking water in front of the memorial would suffice.

It would be up to someone else to disprove my statement, by supplying sources that disprove my statement.
Evidence that the picture was photo-shopped or evidence that proved I had never been in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

And, unless you can afford something like Nexus Lexus, a lot of stuff simply doesn't turn up in a search.

You don't have to have a Lexus to go to the Library. Library cards are not expensive.

The bottom line is that misinformation is easier to obtain than factual supported information. On these forums you can do one of two things.

1. Make completely unsupported statements with questionable sources.
"My sister-in-law works with a guy who said"
2. Make statements supported by valid sources, the more sources supplied the more more valid the support for your statement.

Then if someone disagrees with your statement they will have to offer equal or greater sources to support their point.

 

[George]

A lot of articles printed in magazines years ago arn't going to show up by going to the Library. Polls are often manipulated to get the desired results. One question I saw was "Do you want stronger gun control or higher crime". The way it was worded, you'd think the result would have been 100% for gun control.

 

[Chukpike]

A lot of articles printed in magazines years ago arn't going to show up by going to the Library. Polls are often manipulated to get the desired results. One question I saw was "Do you want stronger gun control or higher crime". The way it was worded, you'd think the result would have been 100% for gun control.

Magazines, newspapers, periodicals are on microfilm and available at libraries. Using sources available you can almost always find usable information if you learn how to search for it.

Your post, TOGs, and 13th_rednecks give excuses for not providing sources for your statements. They are not valid reasons.

This topic was started by 13th_Redneck as a complaint about misinformation. Now you have the same people who complain, trying to support misinformation because they are to lazy to search for valid sources.

Everyone here would probably agree that there is a lot of misinformation available. It is not a personal attack on anyone to ask for valid sources to support a point someone is trying to make. It is just a method to validate the point. People get defensive about it because they would have to do a little work.

 

[George]

Magazines, newspapers, periodicals are on microfilm and available at libraries. Using sources available you can almost always find usable information if you learn how to search for it.

Your post, TOGs, and 13th_rednecks give excuses for not providing sources for your statements. They are not valid reasons.

This topic was started by 13th_Redneck as a complaint about misinformation. Now you have the same people who complain, trying to support misinformation because they are to lazy to search for valid sources.

Everyone here would probably agree that there is a lot of misinformation available. It is not a personal attack on anyone to ask for valid sources to support a point someone is trying to make. It is just a method to validate the point. People get defensive about it because they would have to do a little work.

You are the one assuming/calling it misinformation. It might or might not be, even with a source. A while back Reason Magazine published a short on how a towh replaced most of its stop signs with yield signs & had a big drop in accidents. Occured to me recently that I should have sent a link to our Mayor & City Council. Not a sign of it on Reason's web site.

 

[A Can of Man]

It's fine you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

"Magazines, newspapers, periodicals are on microfilm and available at libraries. Using sources available you can almost always find usable information if you learn how to search for it."
Provide source.

"This topic was started by 13th_Redneck as a complaint about misinformation. Now you have the same people who complain, trying to support misinformation because they are to lazy to search for valid sources."
Provide source. Prove that what I said is a lie.

"Everyone here would probably agree that there is a lot of misinformation available. It is not a personal attack on anyone to ask for valid sources to support a point someone is trying to make. It is just a method to validate the point. People get defensive about it because they would have to do a little work."
Provide source. Prove it.

"First I would not need to prove water existed or that it was drinkable. Whether it was poison or not does not matter."
What if I don't believe you? Provide source.

 

[Chukpike]

It's fine you don't have to believe it if you don't want to.

"Magazines, newspapers, periodicals are on microfilm and available at libraries. Using sources available you can almost always find usable information if you learn how to search for it."
Provide source.

Here is a library site listing the services that are available both on-line and at the library to members. I apologize if you live in a backward country that does not have libraries.

http://www.cityofpasadena.net/library/library.asp

"This topic was started by 13th_Redneck as a complaint about misinformation. Now you have the same people who complain, trying to support misinformation because they are to lazy to search for valid sources."
Provide source. Prove that what I said is a lie.

If I made a statement that your post was untrue, I might be required to supply sources for any statement I made supporting my position. I did not say your statements were lies and do not have to supply sources for something that wasn't said.
As far as a source for you complaining about misinformation, go to the first post on this topic.

"Everyone here would probably agree that there is a lot of misinformation available. It is not a personal attack on anyone to ask for valid sources to support a point someone is trying to make. It is just a method to validate the point. People get defensive about it because they would have to do a little work."
Provide source. Prove it.

If you want me to prove that misinformation is available, it is only necessary to go to search on this website enter 13th_Redneck and view his posts.:smile:

"First I would not need to prove water existed or that it was drinkable. Whether it was poison or not does not matter."
What if I don't believe you? Provide source.

Does not matter since the hypothetical sentence was:
"if you say you drank water in front of the Lincoln Memorial,"

It did not state anything about water existing or whether it is drinkable.

As far as believing me or not, that is still your decision, the sources are there for you to verify for yourself, not like some statement you heard from your second cousin's friend.

Are you really as ignorant as your posts seem to indicate?

 

[A Can of Man]

You should have gone to law school.

If I made a statement that your post was untrue, I might be required to supply sources for any statement I made supporting my position. I did not say your statements were lies and do not have to supply sources for something that wasn't said.

If you want me to prove that misinformation is available, it is only necessary to go to search on this website enter 13th_Redneck and view his posts.:smile:

So which is it?
And prove it.

Here is a library site listing the services that are available both on-line and at the library to members. I apologize if you live in a backward country that does not have libraries.

http://www.cityofpasadena.net/library/library.asp

Nice, a personal attack to boot as well.

As far as believing me or not, that is still your decision, the sources are there for you to verify for yourself, not like some statement you heard from your second cousin's friend.

Actually none of the personal sources I talk about are like that. They're only cases where I've actually sat down and talked to them directly.
If I heard it indirectly, I usually indicate so.
My statements about what goes on in the Chinese-North Korea border region, all based on a good friend I know who spent a whole year in that area studying it.
That friend's work was a key element in this work by the International Crisis Group: http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0694IGC.pdf It's a PDF file, knock yourself out.
And as for the incident regarding the SF man in Kwangju...
This particular person, Kim Dae-jung was involved in that riot as a protestor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dae-jung
He is also the 3rd or 2nd democratically elected President of South Korea depending on who you count was the first democratically elected President after Chun Doo-hwan.
RoK SF troops did make for a bulk of those intervening. Largely because they don't fall under US command.
http://wiki.galbijim.com/Gwangju_massacre
Kim Dae-jung became President in 1998, 18 years after the Kwangju "massacre" as it is often referred to.
Now, if you're facing the promotion board as a guy who was involved in the Kwangju "massacre" and not in a small way and at the time you were shooting at people who were friends of who is now (in 1998) the top boss, yeah I'd say your career's finished.

Thanks for calling me a liar
Source:

If you want me to prove that misinformation is available, it is only necessary to go to search on this website enter 13th_Redneck and view his posts.:smile:

 

[Chukpike]

You should have gone to law school.




So which is it?
And prove it.


Nice, a personal attack to boot as well.


Actually none of the personal sources I talk about are like that. They're only cases where I've actually sat down and talked to them directly.
If I heard it indirectly, I usually indicate so.
My statements about what goes on in the Chinese-North Korea border region, all based on a good friend I know who spent a whole year in that area studying it.
That friend's work was a key element in this work by the International Crisis Group: http://www.nautilus.org/fora/security/0694IGC.pdf It's a PDF file, knock yourself out.
And as for the incident regarding the SF man in Kwangju...
This particular person, Kim Dae-jung was involved in that riot as a protestor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Dae-jung
He is also the 3rd or 2nd democratically elected President of South Korea depending on who you count was the first democratically elected President after Chun Doo-hwan.
RoK SF troops did make for a bulk of those intervening. Largely because they don't fall under US command.
http://wiki.galbijim.com/Gwangju_massacre
Kim Dae-jung became President in 1998, 18 years after the Kwangju "massacre" as it is often referred to.
Now, if you're facing the promotion board as a guy who was involved in the Kwangju "massacre" and not in a small way and at the time you were shooting at people who were friends of who is now (in 1998) the top boss, yeah I'd say your career's finished.

Thanks for calling me a liar
Source:

Whatever. I have nothing I need to prove.