Totally not trying to bust your balls on this, but...how much due diligence do you put into verifying things you post? On average? This is really something I wonder about, seeing how things like this are a daily occurrence. Multiple times a day, at that. Obviously I don't think you do this any more than anyone else. I'm not trying to suggest that you, personally, are responsible for all of it.
I appreciate the work that you put into creating posts for all of us. It's something I can't really do myself. Either by the time I find something interesting enough to post, 20 other people have already posted about it. So no real reason for me to do it. But....come on guys (not just you, brain_dead). This is an elite research board. There should be at least the most basic fact checking before passing stuff along.
It's gotten to the point that as soon as I see 🚨“BREAKING”🚨, I automatically start the BS detector. 🤷♀️
One of the most important thing for me is, if the board ha not seen it, then I post. I went thru the board to make sure it has not been posted. Sometimes I posted thing that's 4 years ago but I do tell you.
How far back? Do you go through months and months and months (or even years) to make sure that "BREAKING!" news isn't actually months or even years old?
Thats not very efficient.
Edited to add: I'm wondering if we might have our signals crossed here.
I'm not criticizing you because I think you've posted something that's already been plastered all over the board recently. I brought up that bit about things I would be interested in posting myself already being posted about 20 times by the time I was able to create a post about it as a way to explain why I, personally, don't create new posts here. Because by the time I've read about it, many other people here have already posted about it that day.
I wasn't trying to say that there were 20 other posts with this "breaking news" about Gabbard already posted today.
I hope this clears that up, and not just made it more confusing.
My comments were about what the post claimed, not solely what's said during the video itself. The only thing I mentioned that's specific to the actual video is its age.
I didn't realize I had to point that out explicitly. Apparently I overestimated everyone's ability to figure that out for themselves. Totally my bad.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your comment in regards to my pointing out that this is an elite research board. So rather than me trying to decode whatever it is you're trying to say there, maybe you could be so kind to clarify it a bit?
Yes, I get that everyone here aren't elite researchers. That's why I took the time to try to figure out why we're having so many of these "Breaking News!" posts of things months or even years old. Because obviously everyone isn't operating on the same level.
And then I gave clear, simple examples of how someone could be a better researcher. Such as doing a basic search with the "news" toggle on your favorite search engine. Or how to quickly find relevant YouTube videos. I just saved U/brain_dead untold hours of scrolling through hundreds and hundreds of posts here (thousands and thousands if we assume they do this for every single post they make), looking to see if the same "Breaking News!" had already been submitted or not (never mind that this doesn't check the validity of the content of the post and that it's still virtually useless because it's just checking the last few weeks, so it just means they're reposting stuff older than 3 weeks old).
And people seem to be really offended over that. So....🤷♀️.
Totally not trying to bust your balls on this, but...how much due diligence do you put into verifying things you post? On average? This is really something I wonder about, seeing how things like this are a daily occurrence. Multiple times a day, at that. Obviously I don't think you do this any more than anyone else. I'm not trying to suggest that you, personally, are responsible for all of it.
I appreciate the work that you put into creating posts for all of us. It's something I can't really do myself. Either by the time I find something interesting enough to post, 20 other people have already posted about it. So no real reason for me to do it. But....come on guys (not just you, brain_dead). This is an elite research board. There should be at least the most basic fact checking before passing stuff along.
It's gotten to the point that as soon as I see 🚨“BREAKING”🚨, I automatically start the BS detector. 🤷♀️
One of the most important thing for me is, if the board ha not seen it, then I post. I went thru the board to make sure it has not been posted. Sometimes I posted thing that's 4 years ago but I do tell you.
How can you tell if it's been posted about before or not, though?
You check the board.
How far back? Do you go through months and months and months (or even years) to make sure that "BREAKING!" news isn't actually months or even years old?
Thats not very efficient.
Edited to add: I'm wondering if we might have our signals crossed here.
I'm not criticizing you because I think you've posted something that's already been plastered all over the board recently. I brought up that bit about things I would be interested in posting myself already being posted about 20 times by the time I was able to create a post about it as a way to explain why I, personally, don't create new posts here. Because by the time I've read about it, many other people here have already posted about it that day.
I wasn't trying to say that there were 20 other posts with this "breaking news" about Gabbard already posted today.
I hope this clears that up, and not just made it more confusing.
FIRST OFF....it's an INVESTIGATION by an AGENCY that does INVESTIGATION NATIONALLY....you might wanna start there you seemed to really miss that PART.
I watched the video, the GOAL was paper ballots. There is a PROCCESS to get there, that is all that was said.
As for ELITE RESEARCH BOARD.....it's more than the average bear
My comments were about what the post claimed, not solely what's said during the video itself. The only thing I mentioned that's specific to the actual video is its age.
I didn't realize I had to point that out explicitly. Apparently I overestimated everyone's ability to figure that out for themselves. Totally my bad.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with your comment in regards to my pointing out that this is an elite research board. So rather than me trying to decode whatever it is you're trying to say there, maybe you could be so kind to clarify it a bit?
Some Elite, but some just TRYING the best they know how....as the man said, YOU ARE THE NEWS, you also are the DECODER
Yes, I get that everyone here aren't elite researchers. That's why I took the time to try to figure out why we're having so many of these "Breaking News!" posts of things months or even years old. Because obviously everyone isn't operating on the same level.
And then I gave clear, simple examples of how someone could be a better researcher. Such as doing a basic search with the "news" toggle on your favorite search engine. Or how to quickly find relevant YouTube videos. I just saved U/brain_dead untold hours of scrolling through hundreds and hundreds of posts here (thousands and thousands if we assume they do this for every single post they make), looking to see if the same "Breaking News!" had already been submitted or not (never mind that this doesn't check the validity of the content of the post and that it's still virtually useless because it's just checking the last few weeks, so it just means they're reposting stuff older than 3 weeks old).
And people seem to be really offended over that. So....🤷♀️.