Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherCat
I wouldn't know where to start to respond to your rationales. However:
As your post is completely a response to and quoting of my post you are giving the effect of claiming that I said those words.
But I did not say them at all, so you have demonstrated that your rationales are totally unreliable and delusional, and have provided proof by exception that your case is without merit as you have knowingly misquoted me to serve your own purpose.
I have to say that this has been one of the very few occasions where someone has presented me a case that can be disproved by exception and that person has then gone on to provide that exception themselves, so disproving their own case  .
In my opinion I conclude that you are only persevering as a time waster and so I'll leave you to waste that of others, not mine. |
You said "And as I said, the readers of that material are often not above passing on what they know to be shady if it suits their own agenda to do so." How is that any different than "I wouldn't put it past them"?
You claim, without evidence, that when people pass on spurious quotes they do so knowing them to be spurious. Saying that people are dishonest isn't evidence to support that claim. For people to be dishonest is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition. For people to deliberately pass on false quotes requires that they be dishonest, but being dishonest does not demonstrate that they are deliberately passing on false quotes.
That some spurious quotes are deliberately
created to deceive doesn't support your claim that the people who pass them on do so knowing they are false. For your claim to be true, people would have to be considerably more knowledgeable than they really are. People see quotes that agree with their agenda, accept it without question, and pass it on - they may think other sources are unreliable, but they trust the sources they use.