Moving earlier Post:
By mleq Posted in Archived — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I have been asked to put this in context and not just post it as is so I will move it back down to the discussion it was addressing.
It was posted in reference to an ongoing conversation in a post below but things were getting kind of convuluted there. I will put it down there as soon as I find out how to delete it and repost down there.
Copy this to the comments section of that post and then send an email to the directors via the contact link up top to delete this post.
I guess I should also say that many around here are highly distrustful of wikipedia. It is good for simple definition or as a baseline for research. But, as I am sure that you have found, that an open source dictionary/encyclopedia is not always that reliable.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
but these facts are pretty straightforward in terms of in what capacity he served in the Congress, being a founder of the Heritage foundation, etc. So I thought that might make it less controversial. I don't really know yet what would be considered an unbiased source from your point of view.
It is often easier to say what is not something. Especially when that something is subjective. [Yes I recognize that credibility is mostly subjective.]
You will find that most of us will consider thoughtful commentators and thorough research journalism to be very credible even if we disagree.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.
Posts like this one, that only link and include no analysis, are not kosher. They are considered a waste of bandwidth because they push good work off the front page of the blogs...meaning that they are less likely to be read by casual readers. Please provide some original thought so we can understand your thoughts, not just some other columnists.
Fighting for conservatism one day at a time.