Replies

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.

Drudge Report posted a link to the same story and website I did. It was to a website where, even a moderator here noted that she had been very trustworthy in the past and had broken stories that the msm wouldn't until later. I posted a link to that story. It wasn't my website or my story, it was someone else's who is considered trustworthy - Drudge thought so too. To follow up to that story, I interviewed some people, asking them if they had heard the story - I didn't say it was true. I said it had been reported and asked if they had heard it. I even said in my comments that I thought that surely it was likely to be one man and didn't represent the entire denomination. Then, all of the Methodists that I spoke to were against it and I posted their comments. So I showed that even if the story was true that one church was doing this, that it was certainly not representative of Methodists as a whole. So I posted a link to a story here from a writer from The Daily Caller that is regularly posted here. Am I supposed to be able to read a report and know if it's true or not? Is the same standard applied to all FR posters? Several of the websites allowed to be posted in the FR news section, with links back to their websites where they post a few paragraphs and then link to the full story (something I'm been lambasted for doing), several of those websites posted this same story - sourcing the Geller Report and writer from The Daily Caller. I notice that some of them have simply removed the story whereas I went in to the post on the website where I wrote it and posted a link to the report that was posted here refuting the story - which is how it is supposed to be done. Now I still see stories being posted in FR news to those websites (and several were simply a link from FR to the BLOG and then that blog has a few paragraphs and a link to the REAL SOURCE. It's a double standard. One example of an excerpt link was posted to http://overpassesforamerica.com/?p=40103. You'll see that they use quite a few paragraphs from the original and then have a link that says "continue reading here." Yet a link, not to the original source, but to that blog, was posted at FR. As I understand it, moderators here have said that is not allowed, and yet it is. Again, I linked to a report from what is considered to be a reliable/allowed source. There's no way I could have known that it wasn't true because I am not a media empire or a detective. I can't imagine that anyone else here is held to such a level and attacked if they post a link to what has been considered a credible news website but is then said by another website to be untrue. The attack is misplaced and it is the website that reported the story and its writer who is to blame. I posted a link on my website to the story saying that the other was false. Someone else posted on the thread of my interview (where I posted comments from people who had already heard the story) with a link saying it was false so it would be redundant fore to do so. Don't you think that, maybe, you're being a tad hard on me?

This is in addition to my first reply. This is the person who wrote that story (still on The Geller Report with no mention that the story is being denied by other sources):

“Griffing is an Associate Editor with The Daily Caller, an investigative journalist, media relations expert and public speaker who has been instrumental in demanding transparency in the public sphere. His interview credits include Fortune 500 executives, as well as key public officials. He helped run the largest Republican Political Action Committee (PAC) in Texas and served as ‘Executive Director’ of the largest county Republican Party in Texas.”

Wouldn’t you say that is a credible source and that it would make sense for me to post a link to what he wrote? Would you have seen that this person wrote the story and then decided it to be a false story? And then, if that story had been reported by another website as being false, would you feel like it would be justified for people to attack you for posting a link to that story as though you just should have know it to be untrue?