Replies

So let me get this straight. I provide a source in the news section here. A writer from The Daily Caller, which is linked to very often here as a legitimate source of news/information.

Then, I do an interview asking if people HAD HEARD that story - and 3 out of 4 had. Asking them their thoughts on it and what they would do if it happened in their church. And I’m “fanning the flames of an ‘iffy’ one”?

How so? Were the other people who posted stories by that Daily Caller writer (who has written a ton for The Daily Caller) also “fanning the flames of an iffy story?” Will the same standard be applied to anyone who posts a story from a regularly used source just because someone else thinks another source that says it’s not true is more credible?

The Daily Caller reported information suggesting that Donald Trump would win whereas other places like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and others said that it wasn’t likely. So does that mean that those other sources are “iffy”?

From a later thread here on FR:

"I have posted that refutation on the website I write for. However, as one reader pointed out, if they were doing something like this, they might still try to deny it. People connected to far left ideals often do that. But then again, it could just be something taken way out of context by the Geller website. Either way, I posted the refutation and this is a good find."

So after all this bluster and denial, you found your premise to indeed be "iffy" and you posted a "refutation" (actually I think you mean a "retraction") on your nascent blog but you somehow forgot to mention it here on the thread where you promulgated this rumor.

You're doing a real bang-up job of building a reputation for credibility here on FR.

You thought your blog should be posted in "News".
At this rate you'll be lucky if they let you into "Chat."

As for your blog...See tagline.