It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.[/QUOTE]
Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006).
The Real Wizard · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]]
It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.[/QUOTE]
Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). [/QUOTE]
The logic. It burns.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]]
It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.[/QUOTE]
Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). [/QUOTE]
If somebody searches for factual information about Roger Taylor, the first thing he's going to trust isn't an unanswered question whether Roger and Freddie were lovers.
And if somebody's stupid enough to ask the same question again in the same topic ten years later, it isn't going to magically turn into more credible evidence.
You're actually making the topic more visible for the online searches. Whereas a single question might not even be registered, a discussion with 30 replies would be presented when somebody searches for "Roger's lover" to see his latest girlfriend.
It would be easy to ignore the topic altogether, or steer the discussion on to a completely different matter, but it's obviously more entertaining to get involved.[/QUOTE]
Then that would leave the thread online, promoting misinformation, without clear discrediting of that information on the same page. It'd be buried on the forum sure, but it'd still come up in online search results (and new users on here do like to unearth old topics, as is evidenced every time someone with three posts resurrects something from 2006). [/QUOTE]
If somebody searches for factual information about Roger Taylor, the first thing he's going to trust isn't an unanswered question whether Roger and Freddie were lovers. [/QUOTE]
You'd expect that, but sadly, no, that's not how it works. I deal with the question of verifying/falsifying information professionally, and even trained professionals (myself included) have trouble distinguishing reliable and unreliable sources, an even bigger hurdle for people who casually look for information. Generally, people will believe what they want to believe and rationalize the quality of sources they come across accordingly. All it often takes for "hearsay" to become "fact" is one carefully formulated reference to a source who would seem credible (authority fallacy) - even if the source doesn't (fully) corroborate the claims - because hardly anyone *ever* checks sources, much less check them meticulously.
tomchristie22 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Generally, people will believe what they want to believe and rationalize the quality of sources they come across accordingly.
[/QUOTE]
Well said and very thought provoking - I've definitely caught myself doing this in my own research.
The Real Wizard · Member since
^ yup. Confirmation bias.
Either you adjust your beliefs to match new information, or you adjust new information to match your beliefs. Or - just don't have beliefs at all and make the need for evidence your only crutch.
But the problem is, more people have a need for belief than a need for evidence. I'd like to think our species is slowly getting better at this.
Grahame · Member since
Fuck sake, what a bloody pathetic post...
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tomchristie22 wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Generally, people will believe what they want to believe and rationalize the quality of sources they come across accordingly.
[/QUOTE]
Well said and very thought provoking - I've definitely caught myself doing this in my own research. [/QUOTE]
There's no nice way to say it, but If you take QUESTIONS as your source material, you have no business doing research in the first place.
Anybody able to read should also understand the purpose of the ? symbol.
I would understand your concern if this was an indirect question, but there's really no way to make an error here.
Saint Jiub · Member since
"They lived together on the early years and roger, especially in the early days was feminine and looked like fruit like mr mercury. Roger. Has been accused of,going both ways as well"
...
Does the above opening "statement" in this topic even remotely look like "Fact"?
It merits no attention whatsoever.
Being well into the second page of this topic might grant this "fact" some legitimacy however.
tomchristie22 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]tero! 48531 wrote:[/b]
There's no nice way to say it, but If you take QUESTIONS as your source material, you have no business doing research in the first place.
Anybody able to read should also understand the purpose of the ? symbol.
I would understand your concern if this was an indirect question, but there's really no way to make an error here.[/QUOTE]
The original poster doesn't just pose a question though, he backs it up with nonsense 'evidence' and allegedly someone having claimed that Roger's bisexual.
It's true though, no sensible and judicious person would take it seriously.
BETA215 · Member since
We only need a post called: "In the relationship Roger had with Freddie, who was top?". That would be the straw that breaks the camel.
Gregsynth · Member since
This thread makes me horny.
tero! 48531 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]BETA215 wrote:[/b]
We only need a post called: "In the relationship Roger had with Freddie, who was top?". That would be the straw that breaks the camel.[/QUOTE]
Are we discussing THAT topic, or is this something else?
Did I misread the name of the topic on the top of the page?
matt z · Member since
Let me confirm this rumor for you all. IT IS TRUE. .....
... They are/were both lovers of life and singers of song.
