Thanks guys for defending my request. I did look for the information and I could not find it. Instead of calling the OP a liar, I assumed my GoogleFU was not up to par and asked for some verification of his information.
OP must have been having a very bad day.
Catsfive: you may not forgive sir. But I forgive you. Have a good day.
So, you stickied your own post that turns out to be a fake "article" and then threaten a user for calling this out?
Come on man. You've got to be better than this. It's ok to just admit that you didn't realize it wasn't a real article. Everyone makes mistakes and innocent mistakes are of course, forgivable.
As to the general sentiment expressed by the apparently inauthentic graphic.....
One can both forgive, and also administer JUSTICE. We are called to balance out doing both in this temporal realm.
Yah, was gonna say that. When wrong has been done, then indeed, forgiveness is what we give to free ourselves, not to free the wrongdoer (although it may certainly help them).
For the other, being accountable or paying the penance is what frees them.
If you cannot forgive, you are locked into the transgression every bit as much as the transgressor. Basic spiritual law, 101.
The question, and request, are 100% valid regardless of any history of the questioner. Unless you are, like, taking it as a personal afront.
But in posting anything like this, VETTING it beforehand by tracking down a substantial sauce or date, etc, should really be standard practice. In my opinion.
Dramatic, almost outrageous headlines without any sauce, or linkage, etc, posted in some twit should instantly trigger the response of checking where or when it is from, or if it's real. In my opinion.
That would be my first response (hopefully), and I applaud the Texan with the scant posting history.
Should we ALWAYS be asking "sauce, sauce" whenever its not present? Basic due diligence. Basic. As in 101. In my opinion.
Date of article? Link?
No comment. Site moderators know what they're doing.
Not surprised. At all. It's sad that people here don't bother to do the most basic fact checking before reposting this type of stuff.
It doesn't say much for the intelligence or credibility of someone, if they believe everything they see (as long as it confirms their bias).
🤷♀️
Brain Cates searched and can’t find it either.
Who?
Lol…I wrote “brain”…
Brian Cates.
Thanks guys for defending my request. I did look for the information and I could not find it. Instead of calling the OP a liar, I assumed my GoogleFU was not up to par and asked for some verification of his information.
OP must have been having a very bad day.
Catsfive: you may not forgive sir. But I forgive you. Have a good day.
Last post: 1 year ago.
It's utterly KEKlarious getting "Sauce? Sauce?" from a frog whose last post was 1 year ago.
Ponder your existence, frog.
Except... this one is close:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/15/magazine/unvaccinated-ethics.html
"close", it's not the headline from the screenshot you have posted because screenshot is fake
But the posted one, if fake, is fake, regardless.
So, you stickied your own post that turns out to be a fake "article" and then threaten a user for calling this out?
Come on man. You've got to be better than this. It's ok to just admit that you didn't realize it wasn't a real article. Everyone makes mistakes and innocent mistakes are of course, forgivable.
As to the general sentiment expressed by the apparently inauthentic graphic.....
One can both forgive, and also administer JUSTICE. We are called to balance out doing both in this temporal realm.
Good on ya fren ! Bold!
Yah, was gonna say that. When wrong has been done, then indeed, forgiveness is what we give to free ourselves, not to free the wrongdoer (although it may certainly help them).
For the other, being accountable or paying the penance is what frees them.
If you cannot forgive, you are locked into the transgression every bit as much as the transgressor. Basic spiritual law, 101.
Agree
tut tut, mon chat.
The question, and request, are 100% valid regardless of any history of the questioner. Unless you are, like, taking it as a personal afront.
But in posting anything like this, VETTING it beforehand by tracking down a substantial sauce or date, etc, should really be standard practice. In my opinion.
Dramatic, almost outrageous headlines without any sauce, or linkage, etc, posted in some twit should instantly trigger the response of checking where or when it is from, or if it's real. In my opinion.
That would be my first response (hopefully), and I applaud the Texan with the scant posting history.
Should we ALWAYS be asking "sauce, sauce" whenever its not present? Basic due diligence. Basic. As in 101. In my opinion.
This ☝️. 100% this.
I've seen this screenshot 3 days ago, article doesn't exist, it's a fake headline.