Please try to understand: the guy who responded to you was trying to explain why your post wasn't being taken seriously. It was because you use outdated sources. Then I came in and pointed out that outdated sources are bad because they contain information that is no longer considered up to date. Now you are trying to get me to explain things to you--who knows nothing about what your're discussing--and you are telling me that I'm wrong. Eye roll emoji, right?
You're making this whole thing into a joke.
The point was that you are not aware of your sources and they make your argument look weak. It's just a very basic rule of writing and researching that they teach high school kids: evaluate your sources because they suggest things about the validity of your conclusions. Don't use out of date material.
But somehow you've turned that into you defending a serial killer.
The website is a perfectly fine source of information. The information is not outdated. You tried to lie to prove it was outdated and you've yet to provide any evidence of your claim.
you are not aware of your sources
Hey speaking of, let me get a source that shows Van Der Sloot is the CONVICTED MURDERER of Natalee. Or were you lying?
I guess you don't really know how the world works. I thought you were kidding around and just being difficult, but I guess you actually are ignorant.
For instance: In the time of Jesus of Nazareth people believed the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun orbited around it. That was a fact. It was taught in schools as such. NOW it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun.
For instance: in 2008, a guy wrote an article that implied that he believed Natalee Holloway was actually a victim of sex trafficking. Then in 2010, people learned that it was a fact that her last known contact was with a serial sex killer. At that point it became obvious that it was infinitely more likely she was murdered by the person who was the top suspect in that case.
But Joran Van Der Sloot isn't the issue.
Here's the part where I really want you to pay attention:
The issue is you give people sources that show that you don't even know what you're talking about. You are not educated enough to find and use sources that are up to date and feature the most accurate and currently known facts.
So say thank you to the guy who first pointed this out to you and apologize and move on.
Sweetheart. The source you used is a random website that contains bunk information. It reduces your credibility....though, probably not as much as you yourself reduce your credibility by saying breathtakingly foolish things.
Guess what would happen if you were smarter? You would have looked at Ron Paul's statements from six years after your bad source and seen that he finds it "shocking that the American people are prohibited from knowing the whole truth about 9/11".
So the first guy who responded to you was right.
You used a bad source and you said something false about Ron Paul. If you had used an up to date source you wouldn't have written a lie. But you did. You said something stupid and easily disprovable.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Now you know Ron Paul also doesn't believe the standard 9/11 narrative.
Please try to understand: the guy who responded to you was trying to explain why your post wasn't being taken seriously. It was because you use outdated sources. Then I came in and pointed out that outdated sources are bad because they contain information that is no longer considered up to date. Now you are trying to get me to explain things to you--who knows nothing about what your're discussing--and you are telling me that I'm wrong. Eye roll emoji, right?
You're making this whole thing into a joke.
The point was that you are not aware of your sources and they make your argument look weak. It's just a very basic rule of writing and researching that they teach high school kids: evaluate your sources because they suggest things about the validity of your conclusions. Don't use out of date material.
But somehow you've turned that into you defending a serial killer.
See how you kinda garbled all this?
Facts cannot be outdated.
The website is a perfectly fine source of information. The information is not outdated. You tried to lie to prove it was outdated and you've yet to provide any evidence of your claim.
Hey speaking of, let me get a source that shows Van Der Sloot is the CONVICTED MURDERER of Natalee. Or were you lying?
I guess you don't really know how the world works. I thought you were kidding around and just being difficult, but I guess you actually are ignorant.
For instance: In the time of Jesus of Nazareth people believed the earth was the center of the universe and that the sun orbited around it. That was a fact. It was taught in schools as such. NOW it is a fact that the Earth orbits the sun.
For instance: in 2008, a guy wrote an article that implied that he believed Natalee Holloway was actually a victim of sex trafficking. Then in 2010, people learned that it was a fact that her last known contact was with a serial sex killer. At that point it became obvious that it was infinitely more likely she was murdered by the person who was the top suspect in that case.
But Joran Van Der Sloot isn't the issue.
Here's the part where I really want you to pay attention:
The issue is you give people sources that show that you don't even know what you're talking about. You are not educated enough to find and use sources that are up to date and feature the most accurate and currently known facts.
So say thank you to the guy who first pointed this out to you and apologize and move on.
The source I used was just fine.
You tried to discredit it by saying the information was bunk and as it turns out, you're the one who told a lie to try and prove that point.
Do you really think people can't see what you're doing?
Sweetheart. The source you used is a random website that contains bunk information. It reduces your credibility....though, probably not as much as you yourself reduce your credibility by saying breathtakingly foolish things.
Guess what would happen if you were smarter? You would have looked at Ron Paul's statements from six years after your bad source and seen that he finds it "shocking that the American people are prohibited from knowing the whole truth about 9/11".
So the first guy who responded to you was right.
You used a bad source and you said something false about Ron Paul. If you had used an up to date source you wouldn't have written a lie. But you did. You said something stupid and easily disprovable.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Now you know Ron Paul also doesn't believe the standard 9/11 narrative.