What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Sourcing and why it is important (1 Viewer)

Yep, not being able to call it what it is shows they aren’t willing to honestly engage. 
And again, just as in the case of the supposed fake election, this issue strikes at the heart of the matter. 
I firmly believe that Black Lives Matter did not lead or promote any rioting last summer. You and others seem to firmly believe the opposite. But this is not a question that should be open to disagreement, because one way or the other it’s a matter of facts and evidence. I base my belief on evidence from sources I trust. You don’t trust the same sources I do. How can we ever resolve this if we don’t rely on the same sources? 

 
And again, just as in the case of the supposed fake election, this issue strikes at the heart of the matter. 
I firmly believe that Black Lives Matter did not lead or promote any rioting last summer. You and others seem to firmly believe the opposite. But this is not a question that should be open to disagreement, because one way or the other it’s a matter of facts and evidence. I base my belief on evidence from sources I trust. You don’t trust the same sources I do. How can we ever resolve this if we don’t rely on the same sources? 
You can't and you won't.  People that rely on OANN, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, et.al. as fact cannot be engaged in rational, honest discussion, which is pretty much the point of why sources are important.  It really is that simple.

 
You are proving my point actually.    You aren't.   You are not.   You will not.   You don't.   Read what the other guys read.   You want to go on asking for links.  Knock yourself  out.  

Some people may say what your doing is the definition preconceived notion or tribalism.

But I won't.
I won't dispute that I am not going to read everything other people read.  Because I won't read misinformation if it can all be helped.  I don't wish to read conpsiracy theories that are not supported by fact.

It is a bit of a preconceived notion...based on a history of failing fact checks, pushing misinformation and conspiracy theoris, not sourcing stories and lacking in basic journalistic standards.  Such places that do that (right or left) will not receive my patronage and should not be trusted as sources of fact.  Is it still tribalism to say that I don't care if its left leaning or right leaning...because I don't care which side it comes from.  If its a hyper partisan source from the fringe of either side that pushing the stuff in bold...they are not reliable as sources.

 
You have a confirmation  bias.   Your premise of the topic is wrong.   Hence it's hard not to address  poster.

Maybe you could pick a list of sources that you accept.     Or sources you won't accept.  Or don't ask for sources and do the leg work on your own to source information.    Or just move on and not respond.
That is what i do.  If i find questionable facts, i search for how others sources are reporting.   Many times even if the facts are correct, it is what is left out that is most important and changes how the story is percieved.  I don't ever ask for a link, unless it is in jest.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
That is what i do.  If i find questionable facts, i search for how others sources are reporting.   Many times even if the facts are correct, it is what is left out that is most important and changes how the story is percieved.  I don't ever ask for a link, unless it is in jest.  
Really?

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/792483-twitter-executives-detail-plans-for-widespread-political-censorship-124-1948-pst/?do=findComment&comment=23217684

To your credit, it does appear you came back and edited later, after being provided a bunch of links showing your original statement was incorrect.  However, the fact is, in this particular example, you made a claim, got called out for it, and your immediate response was "give me a link proving me wrong" rather than attempting to provide proof of your own.

 
Really?

https://forums.footballguys.com/topic/792483-twitter-executives-detail-plans-for-widespread-political-censorship-124-1948-pst/?do=findComment&comment=23217684

To your credit, it does appear you came back and edited later, after being provided a bunch of links showing your original statement was incorrect.  However, the fact is, in this particular example, you made a claim, got called out for it, and your immediate response was "give me a link proving me wrong" rather than attempting to provide proof of your own.
Actually i edited it before anyone provided links.  I did ask for a source, but at the same time i went looking. 

 
I won't dispute that I am not going to read everything other people read.  Because I won't read misinformation if it can all be helped.  I don't wish to read conpsiracy theories that are not supported by fact.

It is a bit of a preconceived notion...based on a history of failing fact checks, pushing misinformation and conspiracy theoris, not sourcing stories and lacking in basic journalistic standards.  Such places that do that (right or left) will not receive my patronage and should not be trusted as sources of fact.  Is it still tribalism to say that I don't care if its left leaning or right leaning...because I don't care which side it comes from.  If its a hyper partisan source from the fringe of either side that pushing the stuff in bold...they are not reliable as sources.
I was trying to get you to see that you are pushing rope.    

But.....

As you were.

 
You can't and you won't.  People that rely on OANN, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, et.al. as fact cannot be engaged in rational, honest discussion, which is pretty much the point of why sources are important.  It really is that simple.
Falsehood

The sources were Wiki, local news reporting stations referenced by wiki footnote and direct quotes from the Chief of Police.

I'd post the actual videos, that are indisputable, but Tim is really invested into his illusion.  I'm a little afraid of what might happen if he were to watch black on black violence like that.

 
Falsehood

The sources were Wiki, local news reporting stations referenced by wiki footnote and direct quotes from the Chief of Police.

I'd post the actual videos, that are indisputable, but Tim is really invested into his illusion.  I'm a little afraid of what might happen if he were to watch black on black violence like that.
The tangent you're discussing above is a completely separate tangent from the item timschochet quoted, which I quoted, which you then quoted above.  In truth, though, my statement stands on its own.

People that rely on OANN, Newsmax, Gateway Pundit, et.al. as fact cannot be engaged in rational, honest discussion, which is pretty much the point of why sources are important.  It really is that simple.

 
apparently all the protesters clocked in at 1:00 p.m. and all punched out at 5:00 p.m. exactly. That's when the third shift thug s came in and punched in and then punched out the following morning.

No no overlap whatsoever.
I can't speak for other cities, but here in L.A. the protests were in the afternoon with thousands marching down Fairfax IIRC (there was a thread running in real time with people commenting on it and providing links).

The protesters went home before dusk and the looting and burning buildings occurred in the evening and quite often in areas in which there had been comparatively no protests to speak of, such as on Melrose. It was a criminal element taking advantage of the situation and who were unconnected with the protest participants. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well conversation about sources lasted a few hours.  Thanks all who actually participated (even if you disagree with me)

I believe there is a whole thread out there to debate the summer riots.

 
While the bolded is reasonably accurate, the point is there is a difference.  With Gateway Pundit, for example, I know before clicking that there is a high likelihood the information inside will be misconstrued or outright false.  With NYT, for example, I know before clicking that while I can't necessarily take the info presented for granted, there is a much greater chance that my efforts to validate the information aren't going to be wasted time.  There's an argument that demanding a reputable source is purely a timesaving device.
A time saving effort would be to just google it and look at the sources you deem acceptable. If you cant be bothered to do that, you shouldnt respond. If you did that and found contrary info you should post that. 

99% of the time I dont even consider looking at the sources that people in here are questioning. Newsmax, redstate, gateway pundit, etc. Not a fan. But every once in a while I stumble upon something where mainstream media is ignoring it and it might be the only place that is addressing it. Even then I would still try to find some sort of corroboration or at least make sure it makes sense. 

But even having said that I cant imagine asking somebody for a link and then telling them to get back at it and find me another one because I dont like their link. 

If I hated the link it would be because I hated something in it and I certainly would tell them so, but that would at least mean I read it. 

 
@parasaurolophus  Didn't want to muck up your thread...but that is an example of a source acting badly.  Not trying to claim FoxNews is a bad source...well, opinion side, sure I am (as there are plenty left wing places where the opinion side are bad sources).  But they took someone else's editorial from a different publication...and reported on that editorial making it "news" and putting their own bias and spin to it.  

Do you believe that piece by Fox was good journalism?  Leave out the message by the teacher...but the Fox piece on its own...was it good journalism?

 
@parasaurolophus  Didn't want to muck up your thread...but that is an example of a source acting badly.  Not trying to claim FoxNews is a bad source...well, opinion side, sure I am (as there are plenty left wing places where the opinion side are bad sources).  But they took someone else's editorial from a different publication...and reported on that editorial making it "news" and putting their own bias and spin to it.  

Do you believe that piece by Fox was good journalism?  Leave out the message by the teacher...but the Fox piece on its own...was it good journalism?
I honestly didnt read the fox news piece. The SF chronicle is a paywalled site. So instead of linking that i did a google search for "bernie sanders mittens white privilege" the article I linked is the top search. 

I figured it would have a heavy slant, but I didnt care because the womans comments are 1000 times worse than any slant that could be placed. 

"manifests privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege, in ways that my students could see and feel." 

It is like this woman forgot that Harris got praise for wearing chuck taylors. But I would bet money she didnt because she probably is one of the ones that praised her. 

 
I honestly didnt read the fox news piece. The SF chronicle is a paywalled site. So instead of linking that i did a google search for "bernie sanders mittens white privilege" the article I linked is the top search. 

I figured it would have a heavy slant, but I didnt care because the womans comments are 1000 times worse than any slant that could be placed. 

"manifests privilege, white privilege, male privilege and class privilege, in ways that my students could see and feel." 

It is like this woman forgot that Harris got praise for wearing chuck taylors. But I would bet money she didnt because she probably is one of the ones that praised her. 
Makes sense with the pay side...that is an obstacle for sure for some things.  Not having a WSJ subscription any longer...makes it harder when trying to get to one of their news pieces if I see it referenced out there or hear of it...

 
....  For others...find sources that have at least a decent reputation...


Make all of us an exhaustive list on

A) Whom you consider reliable and reputable sources.

And

B) Whom you consider NOT reliable and NOT reputable sources ( Certainly there are others you see that way besides Gateway Pundit and Breibart)

Posting a link to a cross section chart, a 2016 subjective thread on the matter, and some websites claiming neutrality isn't enough here.

You want to criticize people, from your perspective, without setting a parameter, based specifically under that perspective, under which you criticize them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GordonGekko said:
You want to criticize people, from your perspective, without setting a parameter, based specifically under that perspective, under which you criticize them.
Basically he wants us to stop ignoring his requests and demands for links that satisfy him. It's a bizarre and brazen ego trip.

 
....  Nothing about ego at all.  Not sure the point of such a post. 


Here's the point of my post.

In 2007, I was asked in the Free For All, by many of the young men here, on what it takes to be "successful"

I said, - If you SPEAK UP, then you are obligated to STEP UP

This is how men should behave. This is the bedrock upon why men value loyalty to each other, to their teams, to their brothers, to their tribe and what we treat as honor.

Back then, in the FFA, people were complaining about the quality of topics created. I said if you want things to change, stop complaining, and every time you see a thread topic you don't like and think sinks the place, then start FIVE NEW TOPICS of your own that you feel add value to the community.  That enrich it, that raise the level of discussion, that set an example of how to do things. That's how change happens.

Sho Nuff, you want to b***ch and moan about what others are not giving you to satisfy your participation in this community. What other people are not doing TO YOUR STANDARDS for your SOLE PLEASURE AND APPROVAL.

Not complicated here-

1) Start creating topics, that you'd like to see yourself, that are formatted and sourced in the way you believe elevates the level of discussion in the community. Don't tell people to enrich your experience here, get up off your mother f******king ### and enrich your own experience here. I said this in 2007 and it's true today and it will be true your entire life - No one gives you jack #### in this life, you have to go out there in the cold brutal world and take it. Fortune favors the bold. More hands at work, less chirping with your mouth.

2) Don't tell others to set the right example, be an example. If you don't like sources like Breitbart and Gateway Pundit, then detail why that's true. Source the owners, the partners, follow the money, follow the scandals and present your evidence here to the community. State your case and let people decide for themselves. If you approach people with relentlessness in terms of effort and passion, that's how people will respond. If you want to cite other sources as reliable, show reasoning why people should agree with you. "Just because you say so" isn't enough. Linking one or two random sites and say their lists are trustworthy isn't enough. Why should we trust them? Present something that says people here should trust them.

People can love me or hate me or ignore me or laugh at me or do whatever, like I give a ####. In any of those cases, I took it upon myself to set an example for the other conservatives here. I say engage people who want to discuss politics in a fair manner, then I do my best to do just that. I also say heat check trolls by raising the level of discussion and providing facts, video, transcripts, etc, etc, I do that too.

3) Men respect "sweat equity", that's a rule of life, not just politics and not just at Footballguys.

I don't speak of it much, but I have a lot of love in my heart for Matt Waldman. He's always prepared and that comes at a staggering cost. I've watched a good amount of college/NFL game film in my life but Waldman does it at level of pure attrition. He doesn't complain, he works. I don't always agree with his viewpoints on football or fantasy, but I always honor the grind. I respect shooters. A portion of every sale of the Rookie Scouting Portfolio goes to charity, for children in need. He speaks up, he steps up. Waldman is the majority of the reason I've supported FBG in my various fantasy leagues for years.

You want people to use what you see as "better sourcing" then put in the sweat equity to make that happen. Start new topics, set an example, research and display why a source should not be trusted, make it accessible for people to see your point.

You demand people behave to please you and your demands but you are lazy and like to complain. If people here wanted more of that crap, they'd spend more time with their wives. Certainly I'm not trying to drag Waldman into this, other than as an example of sheer work ethic, but if you worked 1/100th as hard as he does chewing away at game film towards your desire to see better "sourcing", the problem would solve itself eventually.

You won't post an exhaustive list of sources you find "reputable" because you already know I will create top level posts on each one listed and tear them apart. Systematically, one by one, with effort, and grind your laziness down.

Anyone can speak up. But only MEN are obligated to step up.

I ask for nothing, I go out and take what I want. I will tell you that you're full of it but I'll also run down every source you clearly won't list and grind them down exhaustively. There is not one single person in the PSF who thinks I won't do that.

You want to talk like a leader, you just don't want to bleed like one. No one is going to respect that. No one.

Go on, keep complaining, and refuse to put in the work to step up to support your claimed values, show everyone here exactly who you really are when you speak.

 
In 2007, I was asked in the Free For All, by many of the young men here, on what it takes to be "successful" [...]

I said if you want things to change, stop complaining, and every time you see a thread topic you don't like and think sinks the place, then start FIVE NEW TOPICS of your own that you feel add value to the community.  That enrich it, that raise the level of discussion, that set an example of how to do things. That's how change happens.
Looks like you waited 14 years until you followed your own advice.  :coffee:  

 
Looks like you waited 14 years until you followed your own advice.  :coffee:  
Instead of lame insults to the poster it may serve you well to take his advice also. Many would appreciate it as posting random tweets doesn’t accomplish much of anything. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are the most mad person on the site about the subject.  Nobody else takes this obsession to such a level. You have blind faith and blind distrust based on source.  Life is not that cut and dry.  This is a message board that should strive to not be so homogeneous and respect all perspectives.  
Here's the problem...facts have no perspective, interpretations do.

Sourcing our facts a little better would be a good thing

 
Here's the problem...facts have no perspective, interpretations do.

Sourcing our facts a little better would be a good thing
Would have been an interesting thing to see how this plays out if someone else posts it...the reaction vs me.  Seriously...may have to pm another member to post a topic next to see what the reaction is to something similar.

Of course we could all do better...we see above what is going on with Gateway Pundit...and its been used as a source here.

And no...I have not blindly trusted any source...nor blindly distrusted any source.  Trust in sources comes from history, reputation, and research on how they have presented stories and opinions.  To call that blindly believing in anything is quite far from the truth.

 
Would have been an interesting thing to see how this plays out if someone else posts it...the reaction vs me.  Seriously...may have to pm another member to post a topic next to see what the reaction is to something similar.

Of course we could all do better...we see above what is going on with Gateway Pundit...and its been used as a source here.

And no...I have not blindly trusted any source...nor blindly distrusted any source.  Trust in sources comes from history, reputation, and research on how they have presented stories and opinions.  To call that blindly believing in anything is quite far from the truth.
:lmao:   It's always about you.  Always.

You act like you didn't spend a decade earning your rep and want everyone to forget it all of a sudden without even showing anyone why they should forget it.  Amazing.

 
For the record, I dont remember the last time squistion posted a tweet from an unknown. We shouldnt take issue with tweets from reporters or politicians being posted on the psf. 
I can't either, it literally has been years, although that doesn't stop people from claiming I do it all the time (see above mention of the "unknown" David Hogg).

 
Here's the problem...facts have no perspective, interpretations do.

Sourcing our facts a little better would be a good thing
Most places dont get the indisputable facts wrong. 

It is the interpretations that go sideways. 

Just look at all of the "needs context" fact checks we see now. That should never happen. And I mean never. Much to the dismay of @General Malaise i mean that literally. 

Fact checks should apply to things that are objectively false. That's it. 

 
Most places dont get the indisputable facts wrong. 

It is the interpretations that go sideways. 

Just look at all of the "needs context" fact checks we see now. That should never happen. And I mean never. Much to the dismay of @General Malaise i mean that literally. 

Fact checks should apply to things that are objectively false. That's it. 
Never mind wrong post! 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would have been an interesting thing to see how this plays out if someone else posts it...the reaction vs me.  Seriously...may have to pm another member to post a topic next to see what the reaction is to something similar.

Of course we could all do better...we see above what is going on with Gateway Pundit...and its been used as a source here.

And no...I have not blindly trusted any source...nor blindly distrusted any source.  Trust in sources comes from history, reputation, and research on how they have presented stories and opinions.  To call that blindly believing in anything is quite far from the truth.
Everything you’ve written in this thread is almost 100% accurate. And most of those who don’t like what you’ve written have chosen not to dispute your arguments but to attack you personally. Which is sad but pretty predictable. 

 
Would have been an interesting thing to see how this plays out if someone else posts it...the reaction vs me.  Seriously...may have to pm another member to post a topic next to see what the reaction is to something similar.

Of course we could all do better...we see above what is going on with Gateway Pundit...and its been used as a source here.

And no...I have not blindly trusted any source...nor blindly distrusted any source.  Trust in sources comes from history, reputation, and research on how they have presented stories and opinions.  To call that blindly believing in anything is quite far from the truth.
For those interested in what Twitter is trying to hide  and suppress. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/02/fact-checking-phony-fact-checkers-gateway-pundits-explosive-michigan-tcf-center-reporting-absolututely-shows-voter-fraud/

 
While this isn’t what the OP is referring to, it’s certainly a reasonable POV. 
Jesus christ. This is why we have the problems we do in this country. "The other guys are all evil and my side can do no wrong." The irony being that neither "side" realizes they're both being manipulated to attack each other and ignore the real problem. 

 
They are hiding and suppressing more bogus claims of voter fraud?  The point is...that source...is bad...very bad.  They make things up very often...they spin things all the time...they don't tell the whole story or the truth all that often.  They are not a trustworthy source of anything.

That source and its use on this board pretty much make my point for me.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top