Are you too scared to post what you really think?

There are a couple of posters, not many, that I scroll past without reading.

This is all very intriguing.

I'm just wondering who all these people are that upset everybody 🤔

Doodledog and joseann - I know it was me who raised the idea of facts in this thread - but actually I do think they are important. Some things are more nuanced than one fact one truth but some things (like not having a flat earth) are surely facts?

There is a whole thread at the moment about Sunak and being deprived of Sky... we know it's a fact that he didn't actually say that.

I get very annoyed when people just follow the herd and don't check anything.

I should just walk on by...

I like people to say they believe x y z though abd be open to discussion. I may be mildly discombobulated that my idea about something was wrong but if I then check it and find it is - I have really discovered something new.
That can't be a bad thing.

I have paid absolutely no attention to that debate as I am utterly uninterested in the wealth our PMs or prospective PMs, I feel it is utterly pointless and divisive. However I have been aware of the soundbites. What did he say?

The need to get facts right is why I so often give links to many statements I write and I try always to 2uote neutral and respected sources.

This is not referncing as if it was a university essay, as someone described it. It is fact checking in the way the BBC runs a fact checking group and so do most of the responsible news agencies.

Though, I do suspect, the person grumbling about fact checking had probably made a awildly inaccurate claim and been proved wrong.

The main reason I often don’t post is because I feel there are so many posters who only want to have their own opinions heard, and obviously don’t read what anyone else has to say, so it would be rather a waste of time. I see so many instances where a comment or opinion could be followed up respectfully, thus leading to an interesting discussion, but, sadly, it often just means a ‘nippy’ reply.

Of course, NotSpagetti, the correct facts are important. I think I meant more posters who check something from their favourite media source and take it as gospel, and post it as "fact". Or the posters who seem to know about all aspects of law, medicine, education, care homes, forces, etc. without ever having worked in the professions.
I'm careful to use expressions like, " my understanding is that .. ", or "I believe that .." if I contribute, not having thoroughly researched the facts on an area I know little about.

Callistemon, I'm pleased you're back. I wasn't sure whether I'd missed something, being away now for a few weeks, but I had noticed you'd gone quiet. 💐

Karmalady, my thoughts exactly.

Yes that's true, I have worked in early years for 14 years and SEND for about 30, and some of the info posted on those topics is just not true. I sometimes dont have the energy to challenge.

I have just given my opinion on another thread, re Bargain Hunt and dogs, which some will doubtless disagree with, but I don’t care. I am allowed my opinion. It is not rude or offensive or illegal, so no, I am not scared.

Millie22

This is all very intriguing.

I'm just wondering who all these people are that upset everybody 🤔

I don't think we're allowed to say, especially if they've left because they can't speak for themselves.

I did once get deleted for having an opinion about a poster who has gone. It was grandad and I said he was misogynist

O/P - yes, sometimes.

On fact checking/references - when one or two line controversial "Facts" thrown out - I think its reasonable to post a source so we can see the "fact" in context and reply - not essay standards but modest responsibility - more or less what Monica said upthread.

The problem with links is that the link is often the writer’s opinion. X/twitter links for example, are usually someone else’s opinion and the poster links to that because it backs up their opinion. This is not always the case with links of course, often the link takes us to a newspaper. This could be factual, or might not be, it depends on the subject and the journalist who wrote it. Links to government sites are helpful though.

Joseann

Of course, NotSpagetti, the correct facts are important. I think I meant more posters who check something from their favourite media source and take it as gospel, and post it as "fact". Or the posters who seem to know about all aspects of law, medicine, education, care homes, forces, etc. without ever having worked in the professions.
I'm careful to use expressions like, " my understanding is that .. ", or "I believe that .." if I contribute, not having thoroughly researched the facts on an area I know little about.

Yes, that's where I am coming from, too. I wasn't referring to you, NotSpaghetti, or anyone in particular that I could name - more the sort of posts that complain about TV drama not being factual, or people who make sweeping statements about things that are wildly out of date or just don't apply. I notice it more when people talk about universities, as that's where I've worked for so long - I'm sure others feel the same about areas close to their own hearts.

Millie22

This is all very intriguing.

I'm just wondering who all these people are that upset everybody 🤔

It'll be Some People, Millie. They are responsible for all the ills on here

(Incidentally, if anyone would like to tell me about bees, my inbox is always open)

Galaxy - it was an interview. I understood that bit was about parents making sacrifices and his own family.

Asked what sort of things had to be sacrificed, he said: "Lots of things."

Pressed for an example, he said: "All sorts of things like lots of people. There'll be all sorts of things that I would've wanted as a kid that I couldn't have. Famously, Sky TV, so that was something that we never had growing up actually." BBC.

Sunak was 8 when Sky was launched (February 5, 1989) He was born 12 May 1980 so would have been 9 that year - not 10 or 12 as I've seen reported. (Not that it matters).

Having spent a life time working in business research, and assessing the reliability of my sources of information, it comes as second nature and I do sometimes forget that other people will not be able to do this with the same facility I do.

Among the things I know is that sources often branded as unreliable, such as newspapers and Wikipedia, are to be trusted and accepted. It just depends the subject about what the article is about. Some Wikipedia articles are political or controversial and subject to interference.

But for example. I visited a small National Trust property in Somerset this week, Lytes Cary, I would be very confident quoting the Wikipedia entry on the history of the building because it has probably been written by the National Trust and no one is likely to have wanted to change it or distort it for any reason.

But there is also a responsibility on the reader, when they follow a link to make their own judgement of it. If someone makes a very persuasive argument for the earth being flat and does a link to the Flat Earth Society, It is to be expected that the reader would not consider that a neutral link. On the other hand The Wikipedia article is excellent and reliable and approaches the subject dispassionately and fairly.

NotSpaghetti

I’m a little confused. Are you saying Sunak didn’t say anything about not having Sky Tv?

I know he did because I saw the clip and he did say that.

I express my opinion as a comment but I am not interested in conducting a discussion. There are some posters who cannot let a topic go and produce a thread of interminable length; not interested.

He didn’t describe it as a hardship, as some like to pretend. He said it was one of the things he didn’t have as a kid because his parents spent money on his school fees.

tickingbird

NotSpaghetti

I’m a little confused. Are you saying Sunak didn’t say anything about not having Sky Tv?

I know he did because I saw the clip and he did say that.

I quoted it a few posts up, tickingbird

Ok. I thought you were quoting Galaxy. Not sure what your point was about his age.