Blogs that print verifiably false statements five times should be banned from other liberal sites.

[LoZoccolo]

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. What are some examples?

[LoZoccolo]

2. The question is academic.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. I very much doubt that, or you wouldn't have brought it up.

So. What are some examples of blogs that have posted false statements at least five times? If there aren't any there's no problem, then why even say anything?

[LoZoccolo]

7. You encounter questions like this one all the time in, say, graduate-level philosophy courses.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. This isn't a graduate-level philosophy course. It's a message board.

And I think you are trying to stir the pot again, not just tossing out some interesting philosophical notion for theoretical discussion.

Again: Which blogs? And why five times instead of three or seven or some other number?

[LoZoccolo]

15. Do you think that people who say that Obama should face a primary challenge should name a candidate?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. Yes.

[LoZoccolo]

21. I don't, as long as they admit that the problem is academic.

[Rex]

28. LOL!

5...50, what does it matter when one is making shit up on the fly!?!?! :rofl:

I like cheese! :rofl:

[pinboy3niner]

23. In that case, this is the wrong forum

Clearly, this belongs in the Philosophy Forum.

[Recovered Repug]

3. It seems that this should be taken up with the Admin. nt

[LoZoccolo]

5. I am talking about all liberal sites.

[Recovered Repug]

17. So am I.

Are they not the ones who would have the final say in any such policy?

[Rex]

29. Yes but that would require evidence or proof of some kind or

well just about anything and he has nothing but words made up on the fly! His threads are getting stranger and stranger! Next he will support the Moon, no wait he is totally against the Moon! :rofl:

Comedy gold!

[pinboy3niner]

31. Cut him some slack!

It's not easy to cram a whole dissertation into a subject line!1!!

Kinda like Palin tweeting her comprehensive foreign policy white paper. :rofl:

[dameocrat67]

4. be careful

this could backfire on you.

[LoZoccolo]

8. I don't post many links anymore.

[dameocrat67]

13. so we just should not have any facts at all

just opinion. Does not work for me.

[dameocrat67]

9. it seems like the older a blog is the more likely it is to

have gathered some verifiably false facts. Also why should we confine this blogs when newspapers are just as bad.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fumesucker]

10. Your OP is too long.

[Lasher]

12. I would be grateful if you would supply some examples.

It would mean so much to me if you would furnish a link or two.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. Don't hold your breath. It's just a philosophical thought.

:eyes:

[Safetykitten]

16. I think we should have more posts from "Hello Kitty" type sites.

[marmar]

19. So should stupid cryptic bullsh*t.

nt

[LoZoccolo]

22. So should stupid cryptic bullsh*t do what?

[Brickbat]

20. Five is right out. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall

be three.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. Then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe,

who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. should this also include newspapers? if so - we would have to ban the NYT, the WaPo and the Wall St

Journal. They have all certainly printed and no doubt posted on their website verifiably false statements well in excess of five times.

[pintobean]

25. No more Onion

[saras]

27. Verifiably false in whose opinion?

It's not like anyone here agrees on either what the facts are or how you would establish what the facts are.

[whatchamacallit]

30. So proclaims King Wingding! n/t

[pinboy3niner]

32. It's good to be the King!

:rofl: