Unsupported Assertions / Unattributed Sources

The evo side complains a lot about the creo's making assertions without support. This may be justified, but I am finding it to also be a significant problem on the evo side.The non-admin mode (adminnemooseus) has clashed a couple of times with Rei, over the accuracy of some of her assertions. Regardless of whether she was indeed correct, I have been troubled by the lack of links to information backing the assertions.Not at all that Rea is the only person guilty of such offenses. Unfortunately, it seems to me to be the prevailing situation with most all members. The supply of links and other references is one thing that makes Bill Birkeland's topics so good (although Bill may actually swing a bit much to the other extreme - Too many links with perhaps too little discussion of what the links contain).Adminnemooseus

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2004]Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added the "/ Unattributed Sources" part to the topic title.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Spelling error in topic title.

Note in this and my previous message. We seem to have a glitch, in how the signatures are displayed. I have also noticed this elsewhere.AM

---

Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threadsAdded by edit - The glitch seems to show up only if the message is edited.[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 01-07-2004]

Please note that message one contained:

quote:

---

Not at all that Rea is the only person guilty of such offenses....

---

I think both you and Crashfrog did some dubious statements, back in the "Lake Titicaca" topic. I challanged these statements, and you then did supply a bunch of links. I printed this all out for further evalution, but still need to re-look at the stuff.More recently, you were thin on references at the "Pillow" topic (not to mention a photo that has proven to be misleading at best).

quote:

---

I always will gladly provide references apon request. If you want references, why not request them instead of starting a brand new thread about the issue?

---

I think the references should be supplied in the orginal message. I, or others, shouldn't be required to post requests for reference support for every dubious statement (correct or not) that we encoounter.Again, you and Crashfrog are not the only "guilty" parties. I and others often share a simular guilt. But you and the frog are two that I have personally clashed with on this issue.This is a new topic, because I see the problem as being very broad based, not just something of a specific topic or poster.Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

Rule 7:

quote:

---

Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.

---

Just a general reminder (AND I DON'T WANT TO REHASH WHAT'S UPTHREAD).If you consult and use some source in preparing your message, you should give credit to that source. Include a link if it's an on-line source. Then other members can check out your source, to check the quality of the source, to make sure you're using the info correctly, and to possibly do further reading.Other members should not need to make "source please" requests.Adminnemooseus