I’ll read what you have to say when you learn to format.
Till then it’s just so much blather.
Of course, given the history, it may well be just blather no matter how it’s presented.
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 FR 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 for me to do so. Don't you think that, maybe, you're being a tad hard on me?