fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2634 ]

⌈ 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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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

"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.

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

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?

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.

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

Interesting how that was the thread stopper.

Interesting how it wasn't, actually. Timestamps are your friend.

Well, that depends. Are we counting the entire thread, or just this particular sub-thread?

Either way, it's been invalidated now. ;)

I don't know, the anon who asked for links hasn't said anything. So I'm not sure it's actually been invalidated.

Your need to have the last word is positively pathological. Get a grip.

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

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

Like only when it does something wrong?

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

[ SECRET POST #2634 ]

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources

Re: Okay here are some sources