Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (4118)	3/21/2002 9:14:53 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Solon, I don't think you or anyone else who is very active on this thread or probably all of SI researches and posts links to detailed research about every fact they bring up. If I make a really out on a limb controversial statement that is supposed to be factual I would expect to be challanged on it. Even my statement isn't very unusual, unconventional, or controversial, but someone else posts a statement about it not being true I may want to support my statement with sources other then my own knowledge. But I don't have the time to research every statement I make, esp. when no one has asserted that it wasn't true or posted any information that would make it appear that my statement was false, esp. when the fact that was asserted isn't central to the argument. If you wish to gratuitously deny my gratuitous assertions then fine. There just isn't time to research and document every other sentance I type. If you want to challange my assertion then just do so. You might convince me that I'm wrong if you have contrary data or even just a good argument without any data. But constantly asking for links to prove every assertion gets us nowhere, esp. because the links rarely server as proof anyway, they are either stats that could easily have been manipulated or some one else's opinion. Yes I have asked you some questions as well - For example when you where talking about executions of children I asked you how old these children where, but I was not telling you to document each statement or to provide links or detailed statistics. If you has said something like "they where as young as 14 ( or 13 or whatever)", I would have taken your word for it if I had no evidence that suggested your statement was false. I wasn't asking for sources and links but rather what you meant when you said children where being executed. I think it might be an important distintion if it is a child of 6 or a "child" of 17 who commited the crime. When I asked that I got the response - "I am not the guardian of any statistics on any subject." I don't think you are or that you should be but do you understand the why some people might consider a 17 year old to be signifcantly different then a 6 year old? You told me "You do have a habit of asking a lot of questions, Tim, and that is fine; but you would probably meet with more assistance if you would give your questions some context as they relate to your beliefs and to the overall points you seek to make, if any. I posted the link as a matter of interesting statistics. I am not the guardian of any statistics on any subject, but if you wish me to assist you with something then please dress your questions up for the occasion. I have enough nakedness to deal with right now without scratching my head over naked questions..." I thought at the time I asked it that the context was fairly obvious, but because you asked I responded later with multiple paragraphs laying out the context. Your reply to that was "As to all your subsequent requests for assistance in looking up stuff, I have already told you that I am not the guardian of that web site of statistics. If you are interested in one of the stats, you can follow it up on your own." and "However, I cannot justify running all over the internet answering your questions when I know you are capable of doing your own searches." So should I have just told you to search the internet when you question my assertions that abusers probably being several times more likely to kill their partner then non abusers and that many domestic murders have a history of abuse before the murder? Tim