7 ms·
Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.
by seattle_spring 8y ago
Uh no, saying a pseudoscience site is "based in fact" is not acceptable, champ.
- detaro 8y agoSo which of the facts from the sources do you disagree with? You do not get to say "this site is pseudoscience" and then ignore claims that it got a specific thing more or less right if people provide sources, or downvote people for doing so. So, what's your evidence that the claim "China set to introduce low glyphosate residue limits in food imports" is not based in fact?
- elliekelly 8y agoWhat part of "China is introducing Glyphosate MRLs" is pseudoscience, specifically? And for that matter, what part isn't a fact?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- seattle_spring 8y agoThe source is pseudoscience, not every single line that they write. Go look at their other articles. Go look at the crap they sell.
- elliekelly 8y ago>The source is pseudoscience... I agreed with you that it's a shit source. > ... not every single line that they write. Exactly. I pointed out that this particular headline was based in fact and provided a reliable source for that fact and pointed out where the "facts" stated by the article differed from the reliable source I provided. I fail to understand the egregious offense I've allegedly committed.