Can we all take a pledge?

[NightWatcher]

A pledge not to use the following in order to prove our points of view or as the basis for "news":

1.) Obvious right wing news and commentary sources (fox, drudge, the site which shall not be named, et all)

2.) Personal blogs ( anothermoron.blogspot.come on)

3.) a "Source", a "guy", or "this guy I know"


If it cannot be linked to and verified as a legitimate news source it should not be quoted as the gospel, nor should it be referenced to bolster a point. If you dont know if a site or person is legit, please ask people here what their opinions are of the source. The posters here are great at smelling a rat.

Feel free to post our opinion of things that are going on, but realize that as the saying goes, "Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one".

Happy posting.

[cloudythescribbler]

1. Actually, personal anecdotes & personal blogs in posts are OK, as long as one's UPFRONT & ...

doesn't try to treat these as definitive sources. I have used examples from my personal life in posts, being clear what I was talking about and not using them as proof.

When someone tries to assert something as fact, of course, it makes sense that they should cite a reputable source ...

[NightWatcher]

2. that's cool, but like you say, dont treat it as the gospel

I love opinion pieces, but not when people use it as 'proof' of something

[goodgd_yall]

3. I'm sure you'll get lots of arguments about what defines "a legitimate news source."

But, basically, I think that's sound just so it would save me time doing my own research---but then I have to anyway when something is taken out of context to.

[question everything]

4. I don't have problems with quotes from these sosurces

as long as people copy and paste the main paragraph(s). We really do need to know what they are saying.

What I don't like is for anyone just providing a link (I don't like it with any story). I will not contribute to the "hits" that Drudge and Fox claim to prove their popularity and to attract advertisers.

The flip side of your concern is that we should not dismiss without reading comments by the likes of Coulter and Limpdick and the WSJ just because of the source. Again, we should pay attention to the message, not the messenger before we dismiss them, which often should be the case.