4 ms·
I agree in one respect because this content was not written in July of 2022 because I distinctly remember reading it quite awhile ago. But I’m not sure what the
by bandyaboot 4y ago
I agree in one respect because this content was not written in July of 2022 because I distinctly remember reading it quite awhile ago. But I’m not sure what the issue is with the actual content—do you know the information to be inaccurate in some way?
- Brian_K_White 4y agoSource always matters. If something sounds like it might possibly be true, and important enough to matter, but comes from a source that is either unproven or proven unreliable, then it's reasonable to either ignore it o matter what it says, or look into the topic elsewhere until you have found multiple reliable sources, and it doesn't matter if in the end the data happens to be the same. The initial data, accurate or not, was utterly valueless random data. Random includes everything, both true and untrue and everything in between. The true bits have no value because you don't know they're true until after you determined it some other way. When a source repeatedly turns out to only deliver info that later checks out, THEN you can start granting it some amount of benefit of the doubt. Not before, and not at all when a source is not only unproven but already has a haphazard history. Source always matters, period.