www.ditl.org

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

I have - the Guardian quote.

Which didn't provide any facts itself.

Tsukiyumi wrote:Which didn't provide any facts itself.

It provided the fact that Anonymous originated on 4chan. None of yours and stitch's whinging is going to change that.

It didn't provide any facts at all.

It provided the fact that Anonymous originated on 4chan. None of yours and stitch's whinging is going to change that.

Captain Seafort wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:Which didn't provide any facts itself.

It provided the fact that Anonymous originated on 4chan. None of yours and stitch's whinging is going to change that.

Just like the fact that Dewey defeated Truman according to the Chicago Tribune.


Point: even reputable papers can get something wrong. Which is why they are not suitable evidence for something to be a fact.

stitch626 wrote:Just like the fact that Dewey defeated Truman according to the Chicago Tribune.

So Anonymous was formed a few hours ago was it?

Point: even reputable papers can get something wrong.

True

Which is why they are not suitable evidence for something to be a fact.

Wrong. If you've got evidence that they're wrong (as there is in spades for the example you provided) then provide it.

Tsukiyumi wrote:It didn't provide any facts at all.

Tell me sir, do you expect all of your newspapers to publish an annotated Bibliography with their publications?

Captain Seafort wrote:It provided the fact that Anonymous originated on 4chan. None of yours and stitch's whinging is going to change that.

And repeating yourself doesn't change the lack of verifiable facts.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:It provided the fact that Anonymous originated on 4chan. None of yours and stitch's whinging is going to change that.

And repeating yourself doesn't change the lack of verifiable facts.

Perhaps, you should contact the Guardian and ask them where they got their information? If you want to know sources, ask.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Captain Seafort wrote:It provided the fact that Anonymous originated on 4chan. None of yours and stitch's whinging is going to change that.

And repeating yourself doesn't change the lack of verifiable facts.

The facts in question have already been verified. By the Guardian. Hence my repetition.

Sonic Glitch wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:It didn't provide any facts at all.

Tell me sir, do you expect all of your newspapers to publish an annotated Bibliography with their publications?

No; they could list in the article what their claims are based on.

Perhaps, you should contact the Guardian and ask them where they got their information? If you want to know sources, ask.

Seafort can do that; he's the one listing them as a source, claiming a positive assertion.

I'm not just stating this stuff out of the blue; these are the same standards he demands of everyone else.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I'm not just stating this stuff out of the blue; these are the same standards he demands of everyone else.

Go and fuck yourself shithead. I demand that people provide reliable sources for their claims. The Guardian is a reliable source.

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

The Guardian is as reliable a source as any corporate-owned media outlet.

Basically, your arguments are:

"It's a fact because!"

and,

"F*ck you!"

There really isn't any fact in the article.

They don't say, "...We believe 4Chan spawned Anonymous because we tracked the emergence of this group over time, and the earliest recorded posts are on 4Chan." or, "...government studies show this is the origin point of this group."

I'll consider your lack of any evidence beyond a newspaper article with no corroborating facts to be a concession.

Tsukiyumi wrote:“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

The Guardian is as reliable a source as any corporate-owned media outlet.

Basically, your arguments are:

"It's a fact because!"

and,

"F*ck you!"

There really isn't any fact in the article.

They don't say, "...We believe 4Chan spawned Anonymous because we tracked the emergence of this group over time, and the earliest recorded posts are on 4Chan." or, "...government studies show this is the origin point of this group."

I'll consider your lack of any evidence beyond a newspaper article with no corroborating facts to be a concession.

“Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see.”

And your quote of personal opinion from 2 centuries ago and with no corroborating facts is a superior argument?