Yeah, that's it!
Dear god, you do realise what you have unleashed.. yes?
Men of Honour 2013?
- Thread starter Feek
- Start date
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,037
All mine have been mentioned, so would throw LtMatt into the mix. That guy has helped so many of us with our graphics cards 
Of course you should, an opinion should not be a static, immutable thing, it should be able to be challenged and subsequently further research and consideration given to new or different viewpoints and information as they are presented. Using exterior sources (that you have verified or simply support what you know already) to support your position is only offering supporting evidence, not to be taken as the formation of a position. Opinions and discussions based upon them should be organic, fluid things where all parties both offer and obtain knowledge and either alter or strengthen their position as their knowledge grows or is demonstrated to greater clarity and/or understanding.
How does what I wrote demonstrate what you are stating, it appears you are stating that an opinion should be formed and supported without recourse to research to support your opinion, that it should be an immutable position which stands or falls upon what you know or can demonstrate immediately without recourse to consideration of other views and information. I see no sense or value in that...it would only result in a narrow viewpoint which ignores any further knowledge or avenues of inquiry that may arise as a result of an ongoing discussion. Given the fluidity of most informal discussions here, I would say that might make most debates rather non productive and bland.
No source of information should be seen as definitive in and of itself...all knowledge should have multiple independent source material.
I think people have a habit of assuming that Wikipedia is a source of the opinion rather than the most convenient source of corroboration available to quote readily on a forum (indeed it should not be used in isolation or in any serious or formal investigation). Or more commonly the term wiki-warrior is simply another form of ad hominem when the other cannot be bothered or is unable to support their own position any further.
I feel that opinions formed through proxy are far more indicative of a lack of knowledge and understanding than the use of citation from common internet sources in what amounts to discussions on a forum. It is easy to recite the latest Youtube/Daily Mail/pickyourcontrarian than it is to form and understand your own opinions formed through your own consideration and comprehension.
I hope that clears things up
Not particularly. I think you misinterpret what the term 'support' means in the context I used it.
Last edited:
If
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Don my son!
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or, being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or, being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise;
If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with triumph and disaster
And treat those two imposters just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with wornout tools;
If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breath a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: "Hold on";
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with kings - nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you;
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run -
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Don my son!
For you perhaps, to me it appears that Nitefly is saying that an initial contribution to a debate should be inclusive of the entirety of the position being put forward and any subsequent discussion on it should not have further consideration applied to it when other views and knowledge are introduced, you should I suppose, have already considered all possible avenues of inquiry before contributing to an informal debate. As otherwise that would constitute 'wiki-warrioring'...
It's something I will remember in future, and will simply refrain from posting in threads on subject matter unless I am fully qualified to do so, and have various independent, non internet available sources to support any position I may forward in them. Lest I be accused of 'wiki warroring'. (Yes perhaps a little sarcasm is creeping in here)... I'm quite disappointed that Nitefly thinks that is what I do anyway tbh, others I expect that kind of accusation from, but I respect Nitefly's opinion as a rule so I might have to consider how or if I present my arguments in future.
Anyway, off topic as this is, it is also a pointless exercise as people's opinions are rarely changed regardless of how fully you can demonstrate their flaws.
Last edited:
Soldato
As the American saying goes: "Opinions are like ********, everyone has one and everyone else's but yours stinks."
It's like the discussion about the New Years Honours lists.
As the American saying goes: "Opinions are like ********, everyone has one and everyone else's but yours stinks."
That's true.
Man of Honour
Only this is more important...
I thought they were the same thing.
Wikipedia_warrior resources said:
Last edited:
Soldato
Duuude......
I was stating that if you have an opinion, a hypothesis, then you should research for the purpose of testing your hypothesis, not research or gather evidence to merely support your hypothesis.
Even when it's a subjective opinion?
Duuude......
I was stating that if you have an opinion, a hypothesis, then you should research for the purpose of testing your hypothesis, not research or gather evidence to merely support your hypothesis.
And I was stating that supporting your hypotheses requires independent sources. Also that as new information and views are presented, further research into their validity should be considered, and if found to be valid, your hypotheses adjusted accordingly or if not, then the fruits of such subsequent research used to explain why. If it further supports your premise, all well and good.
I am disappointed that you think I actually wade in to any discussion without considering it or having prior knowledge first, that you feel I simply regurgitate internet opinion makes me look at how I am presenting myself. I'm not always correct nor have I considered every avenue of inquiry nor do I have every base covered either when presenting an argument before contributing, but then it's an informal discussion forum, so an informal presentation is appropriate. Wiki is convenient and accessible and suitable for most informal banter on here. I will have to think on it a bit.
Last edited:
I know you were saying this... I agree.
I don't know where you have got this from, but that's not what I said at all. Just going to back away out of here now...
I know you were saying this... I agree.
I don't know where you have got this from, but that's not what I said at all. Just going to back away out of here now...
My apologies if I have got the wrong end of the stick. It appeared that this was a continuance of a criticism aimed at me.
Man of Honour
That awkward moment when all you want to say is "Don't look for evidence supporting an opinion you already have" and then get that response.
Goes to show you can't google/wiki a better understanding of other people's arguements.
Goes to show you can't google/wiki a better understanding of other people's arguements.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
Make them kiss and make up Zefan but with actual kissing and in make up.
Toys were thrown out of prams, handbags were swung and everyone kissed and made up.