We should ban speculation from the forum?

[bigtree]

...that's what the more strident critics seem to be arguing about uncorroborated reports from Mensch, Taylor and others.

What these folks seem to want is news wrapped up in a neat bow, courtesy of establishment news sources who regularly engage in pack journalism to the exclusion of all but their often-compromised consensus opinion.

That's not the way reporting works. Information can go through many barriers, many meant to deliberately obscure the truth. It can take a great deal of courage to put your name behind an uncorroborated report, and that's often how important stories begin. Some pan out, some don't.

The function of a discussion forum, however, isn't to merely serve as a bulletin board for forgone conclusions. It's an opportunity to flesh out what we know, believe, and can stand up as reasonable truth.

Rejecting speculative sources, out of hand, seems to be a foolish and wasteful pursuit, unless your goal is to just promote MSM-sponsored groupthink, or perhaps, you just can't stand the drama of the reporting process.

[brettdale]

1. What we want is for people not to

Fuckin lie and have others treat the lies as news.

[bigtree]

3. rejecting reports, out of hand

...is little more than suppression.

Discuss, explore, prove. Don't just dismiss.

[shraby]

6. Censorship is a tactic I abhor. I'd rather make up my own mind about what I hear,

see or read. The 1500s were notable for censorship. I would think we have graduated beyond that. I agree with you bigtree.

[Hortensis]

55. When has anyone been censored?

Pointing out that some people are turning to known and proven peddlers of fake left-wing news and conspiracy for their information is not censorship.

And mischaracterizing that as censorship is hardly reassuring.

It's not just people here trying to warn against unreliable fake news sources. Many liberal and other left-wing sites are.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/142650/stop-promoting-liberal-conspiracy-theories-twitter

But ... are part of a disturbing emerging trend. Liberals desperate to believe that the right conspiracy will take down Donald Trump promote their own purveyors of fake news.

[jberryhill]

9. Okay, let's take you at your word

Discuss and prove how and when the FISA court obtained jurisdiction to issue a criminal indictment.

Discuss and prove how "the Supremacy Clause prevents indictment of a sitting president".

If you cannot discuss, explore, or prove any of those things, then you are not interested in discussing, exploring or proving.

[Stonepounder]

28. IANAL. But, while the Constitution provides that members of Congress

generally can't be arrested when Congress is in session. Article 2, Section 6 of the Constitution states:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

However the Constitution doesn't say anything about the President.

Also the FISA Court issues surveillance warrants, not arrest warrants. That's why it is named the "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court".

[jberryhill]

31. Yes, that applies to members of congress during session and in transit to/from

It's very specific, and the reason for it is to prevent the power of the executive branch from using its powers to prevent them from conducting legislative business.

Neither that passage, nor the underlying rationale, apply here.

[Stonepounder]

33. I was agreeing with you that

a) The President can be arrested for criminal behavior.
b) FISA can not issue arrest warrants.

[OilemFirchen]

30. In defense of nothing, here's an assist:

It was only Taylor who made reference to a FISA indictment, which he later corrected.

Creative speculation would suggest that they are referencing a state's indictment.

Disclaimer: Please note the disclaimer.

[uppityperson]

40. Is the only way to discuss is as you dictate?

That seems to be what you are saying.

[jberryhill]

42. Okay, then what aspect of the asserted facts would YOU like to discuss?

Or, please, point me to where the actual content of the claims are being discussed, instead of stupid conversations about "I do/don't like this source" or "who is a troll".

[pnwmom]

26. If you can prove a lie, then prove it. n/t

[Demsrule86]

84. You don't know if they are lying or not...I would rather have all the information and make

my own decision...some of what has been said has been proven true...leaks are not always reliable but...still useful.

[NRaleighLiberal]

2. ...or other reasons. "strident" - indeed. other words work, too!

[L. Coyote]

4. Freedom of Speech sucks.

Glad we can say that, let's keep it that irony alive.

[bettyellen]

5. Twitter is happening, leaks are happening ... Taylor has had a pretty good record so far, so it's

Worth looking at and discussing, I agree.
Side eye to anyone suppressing the chatter. It's not LBN for fuck sake.

[WheelWalker]

7. I agree with you.

[jberryhill]

8. "Rejecting speculative sources, out of hand, seems to be a foolish"

Yes, that is correct.

I agree with that completely.

I don't care *what* source makes a claim like, "Man Invents Car That Travels Faster Than Light". I don't care if the source is Stephen Hawking. It's bullshit.

If a source says that "FISA Court Issues Indictment", it is bullshit. I don't care if Justice Sotomayor tweets it. It is a bullshit proposition.

If a source says "the Supremacy Clause does not permit criminal indictment of a president" it is bullshit NO MATTER WHO SAYS IT.

Get over the personalities, and examine the information. If the information is bullshit, it is bullshit.

[bigtree]

11. that's it

...info is almost always debatable, even from trusted sources.

[jberryhill]

12. So, go ahead

Explain how this is not obvious bullshit. I have pointed to obvious bullshit in the tweets and underlying blog post.

Your reply is... what?

Because absent discussion, exploration and proving, it is simply parroting bullshit.

[bigtree]

23. did people engage you on your opinion?

...that's what discussion on the internet is all about.

I'm certain it doesn't revolve around what I believe.

[jberryhill]

24. Not really, no

I did get called "Comrade", however.

[Charlotte Little]

89. It's your delivery

Honestly.

[brooklynite]

10. I have no objection to INFORMED speculation...

...it's the speculation with no supporting evidence that I find annoying.

[bigtree]

19. there are many different types of information consumers on the net

...many folks, most folks, I suppose want their news wrapped up tight.

Most of the issues we advocate here, however, demand less traditional means of collecting and disseminating facts. Floating stories, giving them a public airing;can draw corroborating evidence out into the open; spark official inquiries and investigations.

Where some might regard the internet as meddlesome and annoyingly speculative, others can find it's informed speculation to be a helpful investigative resource.

[pnwmom]

60. Then why not just skip those OP's and go on to ones that interest you? n/t

[LanternWaste]

94. Speculation, by its very definition, does not rest on evidence but on guesswork.

Speculation, by its very definition, does not rest on evidence but on guesswork.

[Mr. Ected]

13. I support the availability of the information on DU

I also support jberryhill and whoever else wishes to disparage that information with factual and technical arguments.

Through discourse, I am better able to discern fact from fiction.

It's not safe to take uncorroborated information as fact. But that's one of DU's value points. It allows our resident experts an opportunity to point out subtleties and technicalities that others of us may miss or not be aware of.

[jberryhill]

14. It's unfortunate that it devolves into discussions about people

If Donald Trump says "Grass is green" then, yep, he got that one right.

If Elizabeth Warren says "the sun goes around the earth" then, no, she got that one wrong.

Truth doesn't care who the source is.

[Mr. Ected]

15. Truth doesn't care who the source is

You got that right.

The truth will out.

[flotsam]

86. I don't dispute that the truth doesn't care who the source is...

I just don't recall truth naming you the supreme arbiter.

[jberryhill]

88. Who said there was one?

Critical thinking is not an exclusive possession.

When someone says something like "While it is understood that the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution means that, until Mr. Trump is impeached, he cannot be prosecuted..." it is immediately apparent that the author does not know what is the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. That is, objectively, an indication that this person does not know jack shit about the Constitution or what the "Supremacy Clause" actually is.

I am not the "supreme arbiter" that the sentence is bullshit. It is objectively bullshit. It is not, under any stretch of the Supremacy Clause, a correct statement of anything.

But, yeah, I tend to look critically at things I'd like to believe are true, because I know that my desire is a bias factor.

[uppityperson]

41. Truth will out. In the meantime, we can talk and think about it

[McCamy Taylor]

16. Naw. Even if the "speculation" turns out to be a hoax, we learn from it.

Remember how "Pelosi Knew" fever gripped this board back in the Bush/Cheney administration for about 48 hours as the White House attempted to deflect attention from its own crimes---I think it was some illegally destroyed CIA files, but they committed so many crimes I lose track---and then people came to their senses? Or how some Tribune reporter claimed that he had proof that Clinton hacked the vote in the New Hampshire primary in 2008 and everyone was treating it like gospel--and then the "proof" never materialized? Those were learning experiences.

News consumers have to be just as savvy as any other consumers. Or, here's a better metaphor---you can't learn to ride a bike if you are not willing to fall off a few times.

What's the worst that can happen if the FBI has not issued any sealed indictments against Trump? All the excitement the rumor is generating may encourage someone at the FBI to issue a sealed indictment.

[jberryhill]

17. "What's the worst that can happen"

Five words:

Texas Air National Guard Memo

[McCamy Taylor]

20. DU is not "60 Minutes." We are not even a "reliable source." This is a message board.

Dialogue is what we do best. Attempting to stifle dialogue in the hopes of creating some kind of Reputation is self defeating.

Think process, not product.

[jberryhill]

22. Okay, so, let's have a dialogue

Would you care to discuss the subject of whether "FISA court issues indictment" is or is not apparent bullshit?

Or would you prefer to discuss the subject of whatever the fuck the "Supremacy Clause" has to do with whether a president can be indicted?

By all means, lets have a dialogue. I'm not stifling jack shit.

[OnDoutside]

54. Actually you are trying very hard on multiple threads to

stifle the mere mention of Mensch and Taylor. Maybe you don't mean to do so deliberately, but it's certainly coming across as such.

The only people to benefit from shutting down Mensch and Taylor is Trump and the gop, which makes for strange bedfellows !

I don't care if they come with a story saying Trump's gay lover to testify against him, I take it for what it's worth. That said, they do have some credibility, so that type of attack is less likely to appear.

You or I can't prove that there is a sealed indictment against Trump, but you know who else can't prove it ? Trump. And that's the point, Trump will do his nut seeing stuff like this, which he most certainly will see. Enjoy it.

[jberryhill]

68. How am I stifling anything by discussing it?

I am pointing out that the information itself is flawed, and that the author of the blog post is peddling bullshit when it comes to criminal prosecution being barred by the "Supremacy Clause".

Discussing and criticizing are not "stifling".

It's the exact opposite of stifling.

How the FUCK is talking about something "shutting down" the topic?

[OnDoutside]

93. You don't know, no more than any of the rest of us, and neither of them claim to have 100% perfect

information, but are willing to correct themselves where appropriate. You're coming across as Mr/Mrs Angry about this. Good for you that you don't believe them, but there's no need to ram your opinions down people's throats. Mensch & Taylor have come up with stories, that were later verified. Some of their stories haven't held together, I'm happy to wait and see over the rest of the year, to see just how accurate they are (or not).

In the meantime, as long as they are hitting at Trump and the slimeball Republicans (and not Democrats), that's good, as far as I am concerned, and I don't care what they accuse Trump of. For their own credibility though, the more accurate the information, the better.

[truthaddict247]

56. Why

Are you still on the momentary FISA court issuance non-story/issue when only one of the 2 briefly made it and then retracted quite quickly. You seem to be arguing with your own Strawman while the towns folk gather to discuss the heart of what they both, jointly report, and stand by....

By the way, as pwnmom so elegantly put it in another thread, when Louise and Claude aren't the ones FIRST to report on the first FISA warrant, followed by the BBC and the Guardian, and then McClatchy. (Me) How about then you can question their track record.

Claude Taylor's sources have allowed him to report on the existence of warrants and Grand juries weeks before anyone in the MSM covered the stories.

And we, as a troubled citizenry, desperate to know what is going on in our government and in the dark secrecy of classification in our names, get to be privileged enough to benefit from their reportingn that Very likely helped accelerate the action on these matters and knowledge of such within the country to the point that were at today. Only for those like yourself to cast doubt on them or their reporting in light of the monumental gold bits of information they've been able to expose and inform us with, that's shameful.

[jberryhill]

69. Why don't you address the blog post as well?

Peddling bullshit like "the Supremacy Clause prevents criminal prosecution of the President" is not "informing" anyone. It is misinforming them.

[pnwmom]

61. Why do you keep pushing that point when Claude Taylor acknowledged he'd made a mistake

and the post on Mensch's blog never mentioned a FISA court?

[jberryhill]

70. Wow, surprised you'd ignore my point about the blog post

I have to believe you are either not reading my posts, or you did not read the blog post.

Did you read the blog post?

Did you see what it says about the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution?

Are you really going to say I have not addressed that?

[nocalflea]

18. To read or not to read ? That is the question .

I'm pro-choice.

[Goodheart]

25. My take: I'm a big boy who can make credibility decisions for myself

Is this merely a "news" site, or one in which reports and opinions from all sources can be discussed?

If a poster here says "Mensch and Taylor are reporting such and such" how is anybody being deceived?

[jberryhill]

27. Can you point out where someone called for "banning" anything?

"strident critics seem to be arguing"

That's always a good rhetorical technique for distorting other people's arguments.

I've been arguing about obviously bullshit factual assertions in the story, and been called a Russian paid troll for it.

It seems their proponents cannot argue over the facts, and so must resort to that sort of thing.

[bigtree]

32. fwiw

...I endorse(d) your efforts to debate the information offered in those reports, not (yet) weighing in on whether you're right or wrong.

"...info is almost always debatable, even from trusted sources."

[pnwmom]

29. Some people can't stand that Louise Mensch was right about some things they got wrong;

the biggest being her steadfast support of James Comey, while many Dems hated him.

Yes, he made some serious mistakes; and he might have felt boxed into a corner in October, with Guiliani about to leak the story of Weiner's emails.

But Comey WAS taking the Russia investigation seriously and 2 Dem Senators say that he had just requested more funds and an expanded investigation.

So the Dems who called for Comey to be forced out after the election were wrong. He WAS running a serious investigation into Trump/Russia and that's what got him fired. Unfortunately, now DT is using Democratic complaints as cover, and typical low-info voters are confused about why Dems are so upset.

And if we didn't like Comey, wait till we see who DT appoints.

[cstanleytech]

37. Thats assuming though that the reason Comey was fired was because of the Russian investigations.

There are other possibilities for his firing as well one of which is that he was fired to provide a distraction from something else that happened or was happening and lets face it his firing has been a "huge" distraction.

[pnwmom]

39. Of course that was the reason. Comey told the Senate he was working with 2 Federal prosecutors

on the investigation, and many MSM reports show that there has been a big push this spring.

[cstanleytech]

43. Sure its a safe bet but its also possible they did it to provide a distraction from

something else so I would keep my eyes and ears open because the odds are if it was done to provide a distraction from something else that they probably were not able to erase whatever it was completely.

[pnwmom]

45. What do they want to distract from? Maybe they want to stop an investigation into DT's network

of mob ties.

The FBI doesn't often conduct spy investigations. But they are exports in RICO and mob investigations, and DT is up to his eyeballs in mob related crimes.

http://www.alternet.org/investigations/was-comey-fired-because-fbis-sights-were-turning-toward-trumps-russian-mobster

[jeanmarc]

34. This is the worst run forum on this site

Nothing but shit tweets, no nothing no proof anything original posts, and just a bunch of nonsense. Nearly 75 percent of the threads are shit and they are embarrassing.

If you post a thread, provide a good source. I feel no comfort in saying this, but most of the threads on the general forum are terrible. The posters need to learn how to make a good topic. I try to read through the threads each day and nearly everyone of them are garbage. General forum, more like the loony bin.

[LovingA2andMI]

36. Agreed!!!

Thanks for saying the obvious.

[jeanmarc]

57. I don't mean to kill this forum, but it sucks.

I go to the late breaking news forum as it has stricter rules. This forum is a waste of time and I think I'm spending time in One Flew Out of Cuckoos' Nest here. Nearly 80 percent of the threads here are awful.

[bigtree]

38. I love the chaos

...I'd hate this to be a sterile experience void of the realness some mistake for nonsense.

I can only imagine the myriad ways people view the list of posts in this forum. At first glance, it can be daunting, but I find it contains a bit of everything, maybe not at the top of the list, but most everything, from fact to speculation, you might want or need to feed your head.

No way it going to suit everyone, tho...

[Erick the Read]

49. Right on, Jeanmarc

Next I'm expecting alien abduction being posted as fact!

[jeanmarc]

58. Let's stick together. I'm reading nonsense. NT

[Kentonio]

67. Don't forget the 20 different threads on the same subject

Any time anything vaguely newsworthy happens..

[jeanmarc]

77. Me neither

I have nothing against posters, but we have a great deal of noise. I click and am always disappointed. It really is like the majority of the threads here are horrible. It's embarrassing.

[cstanleytech]

35. Depends which forum.

LBN it shouldnt be allowed and the LBN rules already ban it but General I thought it was somewhat allowed though you need to still be careful not to fall for a Killian which can be tempting to do especially if the story is a juicy one like Trump maybe being indicted.

[StrictlyRockers]

44. It's either true, or Mensch just ended her career and is about to be sued.

I'm betting on true.

[Comrade Donald]

46. I'm recruiting for breathless apologists

Because even Stevie Wonder could connect the dots on just my posse of Russia lovers, let alone my Russia connections.

I'm heartened with what I've seen so far. And on a "progressive" website no less.

Keep up the good work!

Can I call you comrade?

[Warpy]

47. Speculation can sometimes be useful

Every single thing we speculated Nixon was up to was confirmed by his tapes many years later.

However, reporting rumors as fact is probably not a good idea. If you remember "Fitzmas," you know why.

[progressoid]

90. Ah yes, Fitzmas. What a colossal waste of time and energy.

[chillfactor]

48. Amen.....

thank you for post.

[ashling]

50. I think that speculation should be severly regulated

on Wall Street ... General Discussion? Not so much.

[Kablooie]

51. Speculation is fine as long as it's presented as speculation.

When it becomes fake news is the problem

[OnDoutside]

52. Well said, bigtree. I find the effort by some to shut down

discussion of Mensch & Taylor to be sinister, distasteful and ultimately counterproductive.

Even if no one on the left believed what they have said, they don't seem to realize the effect this is having on the Right, as well as the Trump circle.

At the moment Trump is paranoid as to what investigations are ongoing against him, and the likes of Mensch and Taylor are feeding into that. You can be 100% certain that Trump and or his gang, are reading what these two are tweeting. This is good news for us.

How many of you remember when the stories came out that Barack Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya ? Or Hillary was involved in a paedo ring in a Pizzeria ? This made all of us go berserk. Now whether these two are right or wrong, and I take it as speculation information until proven true, they are doing a fantastic job pissing off Donnie, the Trumpers and adding to the fears of Republican voters. It's nice to give some back.

[LeftyMom]

53. Bullshit sources have been banned from this forum for essentially its' entire history.

And conspiracy theorizing, especially of the sort likely to embarrass the community otherwise, goes in the appropriate forum.

[bathroommonkey76]

59. Think about it...

Taylor and Mensch want to be the first to report this stuff online. If their predictions turn out to be true then they will be set for life- Heroes in liberal and conservative circles for bringing down Teflon Don.

[boston bean]

62. I would be very wary of those persons and reports. Take it with a grain of salt.

[seaglass]

63. We do have a forum called "Creative Speculation." That's where all the 9/11 CTs go. I think

someone was once banned for pushing contrails.

I don't know when the point is of a topic/source going from reasonable speculation to CT or fake news.

[Snarkoleptic]

64. "Information can go through many barriers"

Indeed!
The Steele memo was bouncing around in discussion for months before anyone in the MSM has to courage to run with it.

[beachbum bob]

65. how to tell the difference from fake news???

[WinkyDink]

72. Well, if it's in the NYT, it's not fake................Oh, wait.

[MedusaX]

66. The issue: Some on DU are still using Pre-45 Forum Classification Constructs

Prior to the 2016 campaign & election, it appears to me, General Discussion and Creative Speculationwere indeed 2 completely separate arenas ...
hosting quite dissimilar types of "News / Discussions"

Enter The Era of 45

By pre-45 standards, every MSM-edia article published which cites
ANYTHING said by ANY member of 45's handpicked Administration minions or 45 himself ...

Should, technically, be posted as a Creative Speculation news piece.

Why?
Because most, if not all, things stated by this Admin/45 are not based on fact nor are their claims supported by any credible sources.

The Trumptopian Nightmare is REALITY...

Constitutional Crisis is REALITY
Trolls are REALITY
TASS having EXCLUSIVE access to Oval Office during 45's meetings w/Russians is REALITY

Therefore, The Pre-45 era is No Longer Reality.

Which means that ANYTHING having to do with this newly imposed Trumptopian fucking Nightmare REALITY
Is now simply
General Discussion

Louise Mensch & Claud Taylor
Or, for that matter,
Captain Kangaroo & Mr Green Jeans & Rabbit

ARE MORE CREDIBLE Than The m-fukkking POTUS

Point being:
Arguing about
which fucking heading to use
Or
which Forum Classification is Most Appropriate
Or
We don't like her because she isn't one of us so we don't believe anything she writes

Essentially Equates to
TROLLING your own group...

Which is exactly what the GOAL of Trumptopian Nightmare is...
DIVIDE & CONQUER from WITHIN...

Congratulations...

[Madam45for2923]

73. YES! and Trump/Russia is a REAL CONSPIRACY not a conspiracy THEORY.

CONSPIRACY =

con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/Submit
noun
a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
"a conspiracy to destroy the government"
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"
the action of plotting or conspiring.
"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
"conspiracy to commit murder"


Conspiracy legal definition
A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law. One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/conspiracy.html

[WinkyDink]

71. It's beyond ridiculous. They would have us reading nothing of "Watergate" until the published book,

or maybe even the movie. came out.

[Madam45for2923]

74. or waited more than twenty years when "Deep Throat" real identity came out.

For more than 30 years, Deep Throat's identity was one of the biggest mysteries of American politics and journalism, and the source of much public curiosity and speculation. Woodward and Bernstein insisted they would not reveal his identity until he died or consented to have his identity revealed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat_(Watergate)

[LeftyMom]

82. Watergate came out in the WaPo, the nightly news, congressional hearings, etc.

It didn't come out in the mimeographed predecessor of somecrank.blogspot.co.uk/payattentiontomeeeeeee

[GoCubsGo]

75. Yep, and if you don't like "speculation" posts, "Trash this thread" is your friend.

Jest click on the little square with the "X" in it. You don't even have to open the thread to hit the "Trash" button.

I think some people just like to complain.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Depends my friend.

The administrators and monitors do banish the more outlandish theories to the Creative Speculation forum.

[Madam45for2923]

78. If Trump had released his taxes and was not hiding his collusions we would not need speculation.

[MineralMan]

79. Who has suggested such a thing?

Criticism of sources is not demanding banning of those sources, except for right-wing nonsense sources.

I would not suggest that you are calling for bans on threads criticizing sources. Please don't equate criticism or even parodies as calls for any sort of bans.

[Madam45for2923]

80. Thanks MM! Good to know that people are not calling for banning.

If Trump had released his taxes and was not hiding his collusions we would not need speculation.

and if MSM was doing a proper job uncovering this MESS we are in... we would not need to speculate.

We would already have most questions answered.

[mcar]

81. K&R

[librechik]

83. I thought that was already obvious.

But the ignore function is helpful.

BTW, everyone is right, I should keep my mouth shut, it's making us all look bad. Me and Patrick Henry, you can't take us anywhere.

[Glassunion]

85. Speculation is a fickle thing.

The issue is primarily when someone is stating speculation as fact or as evidence. This is a counter factual fallacy in logic. Speculation should always be a starting point, never a destination. In science we start with a hypothesis, but we never finish with one. Sometimes a hypothesis proves factual, other times it does not. I deal with speculation daily, but I will never, ever base a decision on speculation alone. To do so, would defy simple logic.

[Demsrule86]

87. Absolutely not...we are busy enough with juries without having to sort out

what is speculation and what is 'news'...often news is speculation...so no.

[JTFrog]

91. Funny how many on that mission ran around here spreading RT bullshit forever.

Fuck that noise.

Just ignore them.

[Solly Mack]

92. If ALL speculation was banned from this forum, Skinner could eliminate this forum altogether.

What people want is speculation with good, solid cause.

Kind of like having an informed opinion. Sure, speculate - but tell us what you are basing it on. And - so-and-so said it was so - isn't a strong argument.

And don't get angry - because not everyone will agree with your conclusions.

But the exchange of ideas and thinking can be a very helpful process.

Unless you're spouting right-wing bullshit. Such does not pass the informed opinion portion of evaluating information.

Also, people have to be wary of what they want to be true against what actually is true.

But what do I know? I love a good bullshit session. If I ever get too serious, please - someone hold a mirror up to my face.

I might snarl - even lash out - but I will get the point.


And I know some of you are searching for a mirror gif right this second. Meanies.