Himmy, I don't think compulsory verification was required until you came along.
It was and is a forum - really just like a chat in a pub.
If someone writes something you regard as wrong then just comment "I don't think that's correct" and give evidence if you want to - or not.
That will raise doubts in the minds of anyone reading both and if they are interested they can look it up.
If you merely disagree with someone's opinion then all you can do is disagree as it is their opinion right or wrong.
If you are that upset by written untruths, then I think it would be more beneficial to society if you crusaded against them (untruths) in newspapers; here - it doesn't really matter.
For someone who has been repeatedly saying that no-one knows what will happen. All of sudden you're happy and will argue for unsupportable assertions to be allowed.
You obviously cannot see the stupidity of that reply.
That I believe no one knows means, to me, that all the arguments are equally valid or invalid; I just don't know which. There are no facts.
And you obviously cannot see the stupidity of arguing someone's case, despite not knowing the facts, or even whether there are any facts. This is despite the OP's lack of credible evidence ,and even their refusal to supply any credible evidence. Yet you still want to jump on the case, against my counter arguments?
Why?
Perhaps, like Blightymam, you're nursing a grievance?
I didn't say I was happy, nor did I argue for unsupportable assertions. I am trying to convey to you that that's the way life IS.
You feel you're qaulified to explain to me how life is?
And you have the audacity to accuse me of being sanctimonious?
Have you ever spoken to a taxi driver? Was he right?
And you accuse me of divergence from the subject matter?
Take a look at yourself.
As no one knows what will happen, because it has never happened before, then you do not know that their unsupported assertions are wrong.
FO was talking about supposed current and past situations. You have now misconstrued the argument to include the future.
And you accuse me of diverting the discussion? That's plain misconstruing the previous discussion.
They are only unsupported because the writers have not provided a link; obviously there are articles which would agree with them but what value would they be to you?
And they refuse to even try. Because there is no such evidence? You can't support a myth or lies.
As valuable as yours to those who disagree.
I'm not trying to change your or the proponent's mind, only countering untruths, myths and misconceptions.
That your assertions are supported by articles you have found does not make them right.
But it does make them substantiated and supported by authentic, official, learned, wiser opinions than mine or yours.
That usually indicates that they are more probably right than not.
