>>>>>>With your statement regarding spending of Bush vs Obama, how do you reconcile this graph put out by the New York Times?
>>>>>>http://c491792.r92.cf0.rackcdn.com/PolicyChangesUnderTwoPresidents_072511.gif
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The New York Times is at least as capable as any other organization of spinning numbers to support their agenda. If I had the time, I am certian that I could do some googling and come up with at least a dozen examples that support my POV <vbg>.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yet you've got time to demand the rest of us 'prove' our statements...but you won't take the time to 'prove' your's.
>>>>
>>>>Proofs and facts (whatever they are)... ah yes, the fuel that runs all Internet forums :)
>>>
>>>My point is that she's always screaming for us to prove our statements, then she ridicules the sources we site yet will not site sources for her statements. Tends to make my 'fair' meter twitch.
>>
>>I understood your point, and I've got a feeling you're not the first person to make it :)
>>
>>My point was URLs !== Facts, and Wikipedia !== Truth etc. etc.
>>
>>So if people start chucking links at one another on a discussion board, what's the net effect?
>
>That perhaps you end up reading both sides of an argument (or both side's salient points). Contrary to some people's opinions, I do actually read from both 'sides' of the media. But if only one side is being cited (sorry about the misuse of the word 'site'), it's kinda hard to have a discourse beyond "Here's what I've read on the subject" "HAH! You trust THAT source???"

Like I said, it's not as if that kind of discourse has never happened before on an Internet forum :-/ What's considered acceptable etiquette varies widely. At least we don't get too much "NYAAH, NYAAH YOUR MOTHER zOMG!!11!!!" on this site.

In a perfect world everyone would carefully consider all arguments and reach "the best" conclusions and opinions. But, some take their "duty" too seriously: http://xkcd.com/386/ (obligatory)

BTW if we're talking about spelling, it should be "weird" in your sig :)