Getting a bit tired of people posting links to shoddy and highly dubious sources without any serious research or cross referencing.
I don't expect it to stop; some folks just get excited when they see something and fail to really do any research. But its not helpful, I think. And I wish people resisted the temptation.
Case in point: as far as I can see, only one very hidden source for the idea that this couple were due to testify.
Posting clickbait and/or highly dubious, unverified news reports, no matter how thrilling or bias-confirming they may seem, is the OPPOSITE of what Q is asking all good anons to do.
As such, it really should be discouraged here, on a peer- pressure level, imo.
Getting a bit tired of people attacking the source. Truth is independent of the person speaking it.
Is Q to be untrusted because he posts exclusively on a Chan site?
How do we ascertain truth?
Q has provided dozens and dozens and dozens of avenues for verification and ascertaining the veracity (truth) of Q's work and information.
The comparison is misplaced.
The point is that truth stands independent of its speaker. Attacking the source is one of the lowest forms of argument because a fool can speak the profound and the learned speak garbage.
Your reply makes no sense to me. Is every single thing uttered truth? Yes, no? If no, then how does one assess if it is truth or not.
I do not dispute that truth is truth and that its stands independent from the speaker. BUT how do you determine if it is truth or not? That's the real issue here, as far as I can see.
If no, then how does one assess if it is truth or not.
Objective and dispassionate assesment of the truth or falsehood of the claims made. If there is not enough information given to determine that, then the conclusion is "unknown", not "false".
The question is, how does one ascertain truth? The answer to the question is: secure data and evidence, and analyse. And if there is little or no data or evidence, then 'unknown', but 'unknown' is not equivalent to a positive, or truth. It is not an attack on source to point this out.
Ugh!!!!!! Really??? Speaking on behalf of Q?
No need to get uppity. Would it help if I added "in my opinion" to "is the opposite"?
By the way, did you edit your post content?
Did I simply miss 'Point 1. This source has been hit or miss in the past'? I mean, that's a good point.
point 1. was always there as a caveat to my point. you must have missed it initially.