using fake sources

Colleen - posted on 10/22/2009

Okay. *shrug*

Isobel - posted on 10/22/2009

even if you go to the link on the side that says Canada (you may expect something that applies to Canada)...you still get the same top 3 stories...if you look at the History link (usually the history of the organization that presents the page) and you get "what happened in history today:"
it's a farce.

Colleen - posted on 10/22/2009

Quoting Laura:

well...I suppose you have the right to be a little confused, all of the information about the regulations that bound that page have mysteriously disappeared. Originally, it said that it was governed by the USC which is a group of American laws that affect the internet publications. I can't even find it on-line now because the info that I copied and searched is mysteriously gone.

What don't you understand about my being offended at the creators of this page using my Country's name for anything!?

Weird. With the information that I had on the page, there was nothing to indicate that it wasn't a Canadian publication. If it is, in fact, fake, then I totally understand your being offended. I just didn't see anything that would indicate it was anything other than what it said.

Isobel - posted on 10/22/2009

well...I suppose you have the right to be a little confused, all of the information about the regulations that bound that page have mysteriously disappeared. Originally, it said that it was governed by the USC which is a group of American laws that affect the internet publications. I can't even find it on-line now because the info that I copied and searched is mysteriously gone.

What don't you understand about my being offended at the creators of this page using my Country's name for anything!?

Colleen - posted on 10/22/2009

Laura, I'm a little confused. I just went to the link and I didn't see anything that would indicate that this isn't a Canadian publication--aside from all the articles about the US. But there are a lot of Canadians on this board, talking primarily about American politics, so maybe everybody up there just like to talk about us, I don't know. You said that at the bottom it says it's regulated by the USC. What's USC? And I didn't see anything about that on the website. I went to the link for the Canadian Free Press magazine and the letters to the editor looked very tongue-in-cheek (sort of like "The Onion" but not nearly as funny), so maybe that's how the organization as a whole is structured.

Colleen - posted on 10/22/2009

Quoting Laura:

I don't understand what you don't get...It's called Canada Free Press...It is a deliberate fabrication...it is NOT Canadian.

So contact the website directly and tell them how you feel. Go straight to the source.

Isobel - posted on 09/30/2009

I don't understand what you don't get...It's called Canada Free Press...It is a deliberate fabrication...it is NOT Canadian.

Laura - posted on 09/30/2009

Am I missing something? The article we were looking at was about the birth certificate thing. It was just one reporter who poked around, found some more info. and came to the conclusion that it's no longer a theory but a conspiracy. My opinion is on the other forum. What board suggesting that you are in the minority are you (Laura) talking about. Is it another article? The link you put up shows something different, I understand it's the same publication its just not what any of us were looking at. I don't have the time to sit and read all us this so if there's something else in there I didn't see any of it. If just the mere suggestion that Canada might agree with American conservatives is what's upsetting you then I think I can reassure you that that connection wasn't made. We all know what the feelings are towards American conservatives. Even if this was a Canadian publication I certainly know enough to realize that one person and one publication rarely represents the facts and thoughts of a whole country.

Traci - posted on 09/29/2009

Quoting Carol:

I believe that technically Laura is a "lurker" not a "troll". Unless she begins to post or flag to stir up trouble in your group, she would not be a troll.

According to the "Web Dictionary":

troll

As used on the Internet:

1) As a verb, the practice of trying to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully-designed incorrect statements or similar "bait." In a real example, a Usenet newsgroup contributor mentioned the discovery of an ancient African carving containing a list of prime numbers. The contributor further listed some of the prime numbers found and included some numbers that, in fact, are not prime numbers. Other contributors then sent serious replies, correcting the list of prime numbers cited.

LOL...then perhaps you should post that definition in one of the many liberal groups because everytime I bring up something they have said in a previous thread or post, they say I need to quit "trolling around".  Maybe I should send out a few PMs....hmmm....

This is the first forum (COM) that I've ever actively posted on.  I usually prefer to have actual human interaction in real life, so I'm fairly new at this stuff.  I don't have the lingo down yet, I guess.

Johnny - posted on 09/29/2009

I am pretty sure that sight is not done by a Canadian (not to say that we don't have our own fair share of conservatives, although most of them actually like Obama-in your last election 73% of Canadians polled for Obama vs. 13% for McCain-and yes, they poll those things here).

I think the concept of having a "free press" in another country is an allusion to oppressed peoples who need to have journalists in a foreign country spread the word of democracy because they are unable to do so within their own borders. Good examples of this are the Burma Free Press and in WWII BBC World Service in German.

Johnny - posted on 09/29/2009

I believe that technically Laura is a "lurker" not a "troll". Unless she begins to post or flag to stir up trouble in your group, she would not be a troll.

According to the "Web Dictionary":

troll

As used on the Internet:

1) As a verb, the practice of trying to lure other Internet users into sending responses to carefully-designed incorrect statements or similar "bait." In a real example, a Usenet newsgroup contributor mentioned the discovery of an ancient African carving containing a list of prime numbers. The contributor further listed some of the prime numbers found and included some numbers that, in fact, are not prime numbers. Other contributors then sent serious replies, correcting the list of prime numbers cited.

Isobel - posted on 09/29/2009

I will gladly call myself a troll lol. My point was, however, that this was clearly labeled as Canada Free Press...I don't see how I misconstrued where it was supposed to be from. It is clearly misleading; it suggests that we, on this board are in the minority...I assure you we are not.

I am not a bad troll

Traci - posted on 09/29/2009

Quoting Laura:

using fake sources

I realize that many of you will be upset by the fact that I was even looking at the republican page but I often do, and have never denied it, in my continual effort to understand you people. I wonder if you feel that people who are your side of the fence using commercials as evidence and fake websites for their information demeans your entire "right wing" movement...cause I think it does.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art...

If you look at the bottom of this page, you will find that it is regulated by the U.S.C. This is NOT a Canadian site...please STOP lying about my country to further your own agenda.

Well, as a member of RCM, Laura...let me say that I am NOT upset by you going over to that forum to look around.  I see nothing wrong with it.  If it's in a public forum, there aren't any 'rules' that you cannot take a peek anytime you want to.  You are welcome anytime, sister! :)

That being said, anytime I venture on anywhere I'm not "supposed" to be at, I'm referred to as a troll.  Whatever.  If its public, it's fair game.  That's what I say. 

I don't have time to comment on what your post was actually about....I don't even post over there very often, so I'm not familiar with it.  Just wanted to tell you that you are welcome to look around and I will NEVER call you a troll.   :)

Laura - posted on 09/29/2009

Just because we don't outright dismiss it doesn't mean that we completely believe it. I can't speak for the others but my personal opinion is that the artical brings up some interesting information that I would like to have more info. on. I don't believe we'll ever have the truth on it. I understand to a degree why Obama does nothing about it and yet, with all the characters he's surrounded by I have some questions. Is it something I'm dwelling on? No. Is it something I'm going to continue to bring up? No I'm sure there are those that will just like the truthers. That's why I said that it's a questions for when I meet my maker. Until then I don't put a lot of importance on it.

Dana - posted on 09/29/2009

Oh, but, we do try to enlighten you with our overwhelmingly accurate intelligence every day!! :)



Okay, I did just go over there and look at all the posts. It seems as if you all do believe this. I don't think you'd like my opinion on it.

Laura - posted on 09/29/2009

I know such weirdos those people are. Oh wait ....I'm one of them! Watch out when there's a full moon, we get even stranger ideas in our heads. Did any of you read the posts over there? There was no reference to Canada or Canadians or thinking that this is what Canadians think. It was an interesting article that's about as far as we all took it. Before you all get in a huff about what it is that we are reading and talking about maybe you should consider or at least look at what we said and maybe ask a few questions yourselves as to whether or not we really believe this and maybe take the opportunity to enlighten us with your overwhelmingly accurate intelligence.

Isobel - posted on 09/29/2009

here's hoping ;) somehow I don't think so

Natalie - posted on 09/29/2009

Maybe it's tongue-in-cheek...

Dana - posted on 09/29/2009

How ironic.... ROFL

Isobel - posted on 09/29/2009

it was posted with the title "the truth finally comes out"

Natalie - posted on 09/29/2009

I'm afraid to go over there. How was this link even used? Even if it was Canadian, can any American really deny the right for Canada to have a handful of their own crazies anyway? Are Canadians supposed to all secretly be Conservatives because one Conservative website claims to be Canadian? Or does having a handful of Conservative Canadians somehow mean that all Canadians are hypocrites because they don't all agree?

On the other hand, I have referenced commercials to make points before. I think it's okay, as long as they remain firmly in the "anecdotal evidence" category, since they're likely to be representative only of someone's point of view, and not actual facts. Except for those cleaning product commercials that compare the advertised product to the leading brand. Those tests are completely scientific and not disputable in any way =D

Dana - posted on 09/29/2009

Oh, my. This is a ridiculous website, I can't believe anyone is using it as a reliable source. It's mostly about America, that should be the first tip off.

Isobel - posted on 09/29/2009

and when I say YOUR agenda...I mean it in the general sense...