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

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.

Yeah, they do. But they're still not a network I would turn to or support.

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!"

This isn't a paper you're submitting in English class, anon; not all links have to be fact checked beforehand. As it is, a user linked to a website to supplement two other sources, after that website seemed to confirm the other information from other sources. You don't have to believe that particular source's information if you don't want to, but the other two more reputable sources say mostly the same thing.

Just because it's not a paper that's being submitted to English class does not mean that sources shouldn't be checked. There's so much misinformation out there, and people take it to heart, and, among other things, they vote based on it. Facts and evidence should underlie the positions that we take, whether we take them in a class or in real life.

I will grant you that the other sources give similar information (although I am also skeptical of HuffPost). But I don't think that negates the necessity of calling out a poor publication.

NA Omigosh you are a wanker. You are belabouring the point obstreperously. Fucking hush now.

My god that is such a good word. I'm probably not going to hush, but I'm so glad that you used "obstreperously" in a sentence. That is a feat that depressingly few manage to accomplish.

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.

[ 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

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