fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2634 ]

[ 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

If you have two sites to choose from, and they're both bad, then you shouldn't choose either one.

Look, I get that you aren't going out of your way to post incorrect information. But the notion that it's okay to post one bad site over the other based on layout bothers me because it suggests that presentation is more important than content.

Okay. Next time, I will just take the specific information I want from that link and copy/paste it into the post. Then you can have the information and not even know that if came from either site! It will also be easy to read if I bold or italicize it.

But why, instead of doing that, not just take the information from a reputable site?

Shut. Up. You would have a fucking point if there was something wrong with the information. But there is nothing wrong with the information, and you are getting all worked up over nothing.

Is it okay to support a publication that routinely publishes bad information (and even outright lies) if it occasionally publishes something that's true?

Okay. So the information is correct and you are whining this much?

So your answer is "yes?"

I get where you're coming from. But, look: Fox News sometimes reports things that are correct. However, given that the network is geared toward advancing a specific agenda and more often than not presents information that isn't true, I'm not going to support them.

If a source proves itself to be disreputable, then I don't think it should be supported.

Even MSNBC occasionally gets things right.

Re: Okay here are some sources

(Anonymous) - 2014-03-21 00:49 (UTC) - Expand

I have explained at least 2 times. If you don't have it by now, I can't help you.

"I found this article that says gays are just choosing to be gay. I know it's a bad site, but the layout is nice, so I thought it was cool."

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. And stop using stupid "analogies".

Dude, that's the first analogy I've even used.

But in all seriousness, I just do not get how everyone is like, "yeah it's super okay to choose which news site to pull from based on the quality of its layout rather than the quality of its content!"

Re: Okay here are some sources

(Anonymous) - 2014-03-21 01:05 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Okay here are some sources

(Anonymous) - 2014-03-21 01:26 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Okay here are some sources

(Anonymous) - 2014-03-21 02:24 (UTC) - Expand

Re: Okay here are some sources

(Anonymous) - 2014-03-21 02:30 (UTC) - Expand

Your analogy would work if it was "I found this article that says being gay is not a choice. I know it's a bad site, but in this case, they are right and the layout is nice, too.".

And then someone will ask you the source. Ignore the DM trolly troll troll, they have a bridge to get back to.

I am not trolling. I am serious.

And I can't, for the life of me, understand why people here are totally okay with using bad sources as citations.

I'm sorry I didn't see this post on the day it went up, because I totally agree with you and think it's really weird that literally nobody else seems to understand what you're saying.

If I may ask, what does DM mean? Dungeon Master?

Trolly troll doesn't deserve the title of Dungeon Master.

I was being fancy and referring to the Daily Mail by its initials.

JFC, let it go already. You are way too wound up over the posting of a factual link.

I am really distressed by the fact that you people apparently have no problems with poor sources, as long as those sources give you information that you want to read.

I am really distressed by the fact that you can't get over yourself.

This has nothing to do with me.

Sources matter. I mean, if someone is telling you not to support something, and they link to some website, do you just take their word for it? Why? What if the source of that link is lying? Shouldn't that matter? Why, in this case, does it not?

I think sources should be reputable not because I have some sort of personal grudge but because I believe that truth in reporting is important, and I don't believe that we should support publications that give false reports.

Anon.

kainjinscendre linked to three websites. Even if you think one of them is shit, the other two are not. One bum source does not spell the end of accurate information on the internet--let it go.

My god, no, it doesn't "spell the end of accurate information on the internet." The internet obviously has some accurate information on it. It only spells the dearth of accurate information on that one site.

I don't think inaccurate information should be used in a discussion. And I think that, when it is, it should be called out, even if the other information presented is correct. It doesn't really help anyone to decide that it's okay to use bad information as long as some of the other information is good.