Is it too much to ask for just a LITTLE bit of accuracy on this board?

I'm totally with you. I have gotten so tired of the way certain people here love to use blogs as their source and do absolutely no factchecking whatsoever. Those same people will just run and hide when beaten over the head with facts from a multitude of valid sources. Sometimes I feel like I'm just wasting my time trying to show these people the truth over fiction.

I try to avoid websites and media that aim for one side only. That's getting harder to find these days!

Very good point. One bill in particular is mis-reported, especially in the talk shows. They are saying it will be illegal to have a backyard garden! The bill is actually about inspecting vegetables that are for sale from farms and private gardens, not prohibiting the gardens.

Facts? You actually want us to use facts? No, that's way too hard to do Sorry I had a bad day yesterday and my sarcasm is still my coping method. When I post I like to check a few different places about what I am posting about and if I can't find anything about it I won't post. I personally think that you should have added something about posting a link to their information source unless of course they are just posting their opinion.

Honestly, when it comes to the internet - I do think that's too much to ask... be it here, or anywhere else. There may be a short period of time when things are good, but you're always going to lose that as the population of an internet community (such as myLot) increases past a critical point. It's just something to live with or actively deal with somehow... I don't know how to achieve the latter, however, so for now I just live with it.

Spall, we have to watch what we say on myLot now, Rose is apparently reporting everything we say to WND.

Sometimes I think the internet feels an obligation to be the number one creator of urban legends. It's not just on Mylot. It's the entire internet. Inaccurate information spreads like prairie fire.

GREAT discussion, Spall, and one that's been overdue! I guess it IS too much to ask for some here. There are some here for whom "facts" and "accuracy" have totally different definitions than they do for the rest of us. I'll admit, when I was new to the internet I would sometimes post links from some of the more biased blog sites but I honestly didn't know any better. Now I'll still sometimes use a link from either a liberal or conservative blog if they have a video or transcript of an interview or quote but it's not for their editorial content it's just for the information. Annie

Most people have a bias towards a certain type of media, and tend to doubt that source less than others. I have to laugh at the frequency with which people use sites like World Net Daily as a source. I'd be less inclined to fact check a source from Fox News than WND, that's how bad it is. But it's not just a particular media source that suffers from inaccuracy - all of them do it. That's why I usually look up the legislation in question if a particular person is posting news on it from an indirect source (Fox, CNN, etc.). I'm with you on this one. If you're going to cry foul, make sure you fact check first.

Oh my goodness I know exactly what you mean....especially the ones that are totally just being prejudiced against a certain group of people in society. I came across one the other day that i knew right away was completely outlandish and kept asking for a link to the bill, the link they gave was to a website and where one of the reviewers of the bill on that website was called "faith4action"....the one person who finally did submit a link was against everything the original poster was saying and prooved that the topic was blown WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion, it makes me sick how certain people on here go out of there way to twist things and might make people prejudiced against other people

When I post a piece of legislation I feel is relevent, I not only provide a link to the bill, I post the actual bill text (when length permits) along with my comments on whats wrong with the bill using segments of text from it to illustrate my points. I alos if possibly try to name sponsors and conflicts. For example, the food modernization and safety act that someone else pointed out as hype in this thread. Though it doesn't ban gardens, it does place severe restrictions and requirements on selling vegatabl;es from one's gardens, effecting mostly small farmers who would be driven ut of business by this. In addition to this, there were conflicts, a consponsor's husband heads up a consulting firm that had Monsanto as a client and in addition to this, the cosponsor herself had recieved over $180,000 in contributions from big food comanies that would benefit from the disapearence of small farms from the market base. THIS is how issues and bills should be adressed. There is enough legitimate scary stuff happening with out having to resort to hype. All hype does is discredit an important issue or movement.

Ah but you know it is not going to happen. The few fringers here jump on anything they think is remotely negative before they read it through. And then if you come up with something to prove that they are wrong they do not even bother to read those links either.

Accuracy on this board? The funny thing here is that the people that are doing this won't understand that you are talking about them. I agree with you 100%, I don't even bother looking at post that talk about this stuff in the subject line. Thanks for bringing this up.

Thank you for making this topic. There have been several times lately when I have ended up agreeing with posters only to later find from the actual source that the entire topic was a complete twist of reality.

Hey Spal, here's a great story on how even the morons in the media are too stupid to verify their stories and fell for a wikipedia hoax. It's their freaking JOB to verify what they're printing and they don't do it. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,519283,00.html

Don't worry I haven't reached the 500 post yet. but even though i reached that mark there's no way am gonna put too much attention on posting links about issues because i only do that when it's very interesting internationally. well, some prefer to post when they believed it can generate many responses and arguments in that discussion. you can't blame them, but nice point though.

Actually when it comes to discussions like that, I mostly just skip, or answer in a neutral manner because first, I am too lazy to check sometimes, and second, whenever there are links our internet speed hinders me to multi-task. So I just leave it as it is.

I agree. Whether it's about legislation or anything else, facts should be checked before they will be posted as facts. Otherwise, we should know how to use the word "allegedly" or "according to unverified report". The best rule I think is, if you are not sure and you can not confirm it after all, don't post it.

I think it just boils down to the persons principle. There are people who do not value integrity or are just plain lazy (which is another bad trait) and this is why we get postings that are not accurate. I guess we will just have to hope that more people will have the sense of responsibility towards what they post.

Hi, spalladino. No, it is not too much to ask. But please don't have high hopes that you will get what you are asking for. Again, it's not too much to ask. Happy MyLotting!