[ SECRET POST #2634 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2634 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Lady Gaga]


__________________________________________________



03.
[free!, attack on titan]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.
(Panic! at the Disco)


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.
[Anarky]


__________________________________________________



10.
(Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)


__________________________________________________



11.
[Frozen]













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 013 secrets from Secret Submission Post #376.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 1 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you for some sources I'm not embarrassed to have in my browser history.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

Yeah those dailymail and jezebel links up top....

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Why do you think that the NY Post is better than the Daily Mail? It's just as trashy and is owned by the same people.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

I was talking about the guardian link, which I at least haven't heard tawdry things about.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry to disappoint, but several of their journalists have run stories that turned out to be bogus, and/or hypocritical. Look up Johan Hari (who is also an egotistical dick, but that's by the by).

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

I just used that one because it listed all of the expenses. The other ones I found did not have it all laid out except the Dailymail. Which honestly? Has a shitty layout to me (all those sidebar articles).

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Wait. So you didn't discount the Daily Mail because it was disreputable; you discounted it because you don't like its layout?

Are you serious?

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Or maybe it's easier to go between two-three tabs than the Daily Mail's layout. Among other reasons to not link to it, of course.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know what you're trying to say.

I don't give two craps about the ease of navigating a website. I care about whether or not that site is reputable. Daily Mail and NY Post are both disreputable, but the poster elevates NY Post over Daily Mail because NY Post has a better layout. There's something seriously wrong with that.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

DA. Uh, what? They just said that the layout was better; nothing on the quality or reliability of the information.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Your priorities are kind of wonky if you think this is a case of "seriously wrong"...

Re: Okay here are some sources

[kaijinscendre]

Two websites. Same information. Both are shitty sites. But one of those shitty sites has a good layout. So yes.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

If you know that they are both shitty, and you also know that they both put forth the same information, then why support either one? Regardless of the layout, the information is still going to be shitty.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[riddian]

Not to mention the info looks to be verified by those other, more reputable sources. Even the Daily Fail does occasionally get things right.

This thread is amazing (but not exactly in a good way). I'm fairly impressed by anon's hateboner, I have to say. XD

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Right, so that's a bum source. They also provided two others. Move along. God, I can't believe people as fussy as you actually exist.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

This. Thanks so much for doing the sifting for the rest of us.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

"Sifting?"

They have admitted that one of the publications they've linked to is "shitty," and that the only reason they chose it is because it has a good layout.

Maybe you should do your own sifting rather than relying on someone else.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Wow. You have some serious issues with those publications, if you have to repeat this so many times.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Well, you're kind of right, in that I do have a pretty big problem with them. They are known to publish stories containing invented "facts." Why should I not have a problem with that? Why should I not speak out against that?

If you knew that someone was peddling misinformation, and you saw a bunch of people spreading said misinformation, would you keep your mouth shut?

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

DA

So instead of attacking the publications and pointing out (specific) instances where they're wrong and you have the accurate information right here, you're attacking people who dare to post the links. My, how noble of you.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, you're right. Grant me that I'm just finding fast examples, here, but two examples for each:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/05/libel-lawsuit-filed-against-new-york-post-bombing-coverage/enRvNI9PSig0AHDxJHYqFJ/story.html
http://www.imediaethics.org/News/921/Ny_post_deletes_incorrect_liver_transplant_story_after_page_2_correction.php

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/12/30/climate-change-misinformer-of-the-year-the-dail/197340
http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2011/dec/09/pcc-dailymail

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

bugupyourass!anon, please don't shit up my gratitude post, too. You've got plenty to play with already. Don't get greedy.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

There's no point in calling something out if it's only called out under certain circumstances.

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

Like only when it does something wrong?

Re: Okay here are some sources

[(Anonymous)]

...it puts the lotion on its skin or it gets the hose again?