4Chan prevents potential shooting

[Captain Seafort]

You've said before, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive assertion (in this case, that Anonymous is "born out of the influential internet messageboard 4chan"). Your article lists no sources for this assertion, so is not supporting evidence on it's own.

It certainly is - I've quoted a widely respected broadsheet newspaper which, while not a primary source, is ample evidence to support the assertion. If stitch wants to claim that the Guardian is wrong, then it's his job to come up with some contradictory evidence.

[Tsukiyumi]

The Guardian didn't list where they got their information in the first place.

Perhaps you have the source to list?

...If stitch wants to claim that the Guardian is wrong, then it's his job to come up with some contradictory evidence.

No, it's not his job to prove a negative assertion, unless you provide direct sources to back up your positive claim, remember?

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence, right?

So, he's already proven them "wrong". They have no evidence, and neither do you.

[Captain Seafort]

The Guardian didn't list where they got their information in the first place.

Why should they? It's a newspaper, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I do expect them to check their sources before publishing, but there's no requirement to name their sources. I may disagree with the Guardian's political slant on most things, but its status as a reliable source of fact is indisputable, as with all the broadsheets.

...If stitch wants to claim that the Guardian is wrong, then it's his job to come up with some contradictory evidence.

No, it's not his job to prove a negative assertion, unless you provide direct sources to back up your positive claim, remember?

Not quite. It is indeed my responsibility to provide evidence to support my claim, which I have done so in the from of the above quotes from reliable secondary sources, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that primary sources were required. If stitch wishes to dispute the evidence I've provided, then he must provide evidence demonstrating that the Guardian is wrong on this point.

[Tsukiyumi]

Why should they? It's a newspaper, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I do expect them to check their sources before publishing, but there's no requirement to name their sources. I may disagree with the Guardian's political slant on most things, but its status as a reliable source of fact is indisputable, as with all the broadsheets.

I don't care how respected they are (in the UK); if they don't state where they got the info from, it's still an unproven assertion.

Not quite. It is indeed my responsibility to provide evidence to support my claim, which I have done so in the from of the above quotes from reliable secondary sources, but I'm not sure where you got the idea that primary sources were required. If stitch wishes to dispute the evidence I've provided, then he must provide evidence demonstrating that the Guardian is wrong on this point.

I'm sure they did check the sources. Too bad they didn't list them.

I got the idea that primary sources were required when you decried the use of Wikipedia and other collated news sources. The Guardian may be respected in the UK, but I'd personally never heard of it until I joined DITL. Would you accept the Houston Chronicle as a valid secondary source if they didn't list where their information was coming from? They're a respected news source here...

We don't see where they're getting this info, so at best it's an editorial opinion from a respected paper.

[Captain Seafort]

I got the idea that primary sources were required when you decried the use of Wikipedia and other collated news sources.

I decry Wiki because it's the collected random assertions of every idiot with modem, not because it isn't a primary source. It's useful as a basic intro to a topic, but if you want to start arguing points then it's best used as a repository of links to proper sources (like the Guardian), and refer directly to those.

Would you accept the Houston Chronicle as a valid secondary source if they didn't list where their information was coming from? They're a respected news source here...

I'd probably be a bit dubious, given that it is, I presume, a local paper, and therefore generally more sensationalist than the nationals, but I'd consider it a reliable source on matters related to Houston. The likes of the NYT, USA Today, etc I would certainly consider reliable.

We don't see where they're getting this info, so at best it's an editorial opinion from a respected paper.

No, it's a statement of fact by a respected paper, and can therefore be taken as such in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

[stitch626]

Considering that Anonymous posted on other sites before any post of such was made on 4Chan, I think thats sufficient evidence of them not originating from 4Chan (lacking actual evidence of the positive).

[Captain Seafort]

Considering that Anonymous posted on other sites before any post of such was made on 4Chan, I think thats sufficient evidence of them not originating from 4Chan

Wrong. Given the Telegraph quote, it would simply mean that there wouldn't be sufficient evidence to assert that the one developed from the other.

The Guardian quote, of course, blows the idea that A didn't come from 4chan out of the water.

(lacking actual evidence of the positive).

Other than the Guardian quote, of course, which you seem determined to ignore. A determination that brings your honesty and intelligence into serious question. At least Tsu, while wrong, is making some attempt to support his position through argument.

[Tsukiyumi]

I decry Wiki because it's the collected random assertions of every idiot with modem, not because it isn't a primary source. It's useful as a basic intro to a topic, but if you want to start arguing points then it's best used as a repository of links to proper sources (like the Guardian), and refer directly to those.

Fair enough.

Would you accept the Houston Chronicle as a valid secondary source if they didn't list where their information was coming from? They're a respected news source here...

I'd probably be a bit dubious, given that it is, I presume, a local paper, and therefore generally more sensationalist than the nationals, but I'd consider it a reliable source on matters related to Houston. The likes of the NYT, USA Today, etc I would certainly consider reliable.

It's actually the ninth-largest paper in the US by circulation, but any article by them that failed to list direct sources would be dubious to me.

We don't see where they're getting this info, so at best it's an editorial opinion from a respected paper.

No, it's a statement of fact by a respected paper, and can therefore be taken as such in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Again, they wrote an article making a positive assertion without evidence to support it, and you're linking to that article... Still no actual evidence anywhere in there.

[stitch626]

Other than the Guardian quote, of course, which you seem determined to ignore.

Of course I'll ignore it. I'll ignore it because all it proves is that someone at the Guardian thinks that Anonymous came from 4Chan.


All that link is is evidence of supposed evidence. Which is worthless.


I will agree, its not like linking something from the tabloids. But all you have as evidence is a few statements of a supposed fact (unsupported other than reputation) and the fact that there are posts by Anonymous on 4Chan. However, since the posts on 4Chan came after posts on both Twitter and Facebook, that means it is not evidence of 4Chan being the starting point.

Add to that that many of these hackers use private networks to communicate with each other, they only post on forums and such to spread their message, no different that politicians using Youtube. And for reaching many people worldwide, 4Chan, Facebook, and Twitter are the best.

[Tsukiyumi]

...And for reaching many people worldwide, 4Chan, Facebook, and Twitter are the best.

I'll keep that in mind when it's time for the Trix Revolution.

[Griffin]

Trix?

[Tsukiyumi]

Trix?

Yeah, man. I'm still pissed about the transition of Trix from round fruit-flavored pieces to the hard (see: tooth-breaking) fruit-shaped fruit-flavored pieces.

Something has to be done about that.

[Captain Seafort]

It's actually the ninth-largest paper in the US by circulation

What's that got to do with quality? The highest-circulation paper over here is the Sun, which I'd consider slightly more reliable than cow shit.

any article by them that failed to list direct sources would be dubious to me.

Evidence, I would say, they they have a dubious reliability record, if they can't be trusted without a list of sources for every minor fact they print.

Again, they wrote an article making a positive assertion without evidence to support it

No, they made a positive assertion without publishing a list of their sources. As a reliable national newspaper, they can be relied upon to check their facts. I understand that you don't like it, but that's your problem, not mine, and not the Guardian's. Deal with it.

[Tsukiyumi]

No, they made a positive assertion without publishing a list of their sources. As a reliable national newspaper, they can be relied upon to check their facts. I understand that you don't like it, but that's your problem, not mine, and not the Guardian's. Deal with it.

And, the fact remains that you haven't provided any actual facts to back up your assertion.


Deal with that.


Got anything other than "the news article says so"?


Condan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trix_%28cereal%29

[Captain Seafort]

Of course I'll ignore it. I'll ignore it because all it proves is that someone at the Guardian thinks that Anonymous came from 4Chan.

The Guardian is a reputable broadsheet. Reputable broadsheets do not state facts without first checking that those facts are accurate. Ergo, the fact that A came from 4chan is accurate. If you have evidence to the contrary (i.e. a claim by a reliable individual or organisation that A originated on another site, or by a group of friends getting to together, or by some other stated means) then fair enough. Until such time, the Guardian's statement is solid and uncontradicted evidence of the group's origins.

I will agree, its not like linking something from the tabloids.

Agreed. If a tabloid makes a claim, you should check a reliable source. Such as a broadsheet.

But all you have as evidence is a few statements of a supposed fact (unsupported other than reputation)

How do you think they got that reputation, hmm? See my response to the first bit of your post.

the fact that there are posts by Anonymous on 4Chan. However, since the posts on 4Chan came after posts on both Twitter and Facebook, that means it is not evidence of 4Chan being the starting point.

Add to that that many of these hackers use private networks to communicate with each other, they only post on forums and such to spread their message, no different that politicians using Youtube. And for reaching many people worldwide, 4Chan, Facebook, and Twitter are the best.

Fair enough. However, none of that contradicts the Guardian's statement.