|
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
dsgrue3 said:
Mazty said:
I was talking about you...
I don't do referenced work, I just do references.
Therefore then you don't do papers as they rely on references....
|
His reference was from an about.com atheist section. Not remotely credible.
I apologize for failing to realize who you were quoting.
|
The issue with that is that you don't seem to have any concrete rules for what is a creditable source. You seem to switch with the wind. No references = not valid. Yet you also pass the bizarro ruling that if something is referenced it's not valid....Until you adopt the accepted method for validating work, as well as realising that not being referenced doesn't instantly discredit an idea, you are just going to be barking "computer says noooo".
|
That's why I said the source is suspect. I would never allow wikipedia unless both parties agreed that the material is sound.
|
You would never allow wiki even if it is correctly sourced. That shows you do not understand referencing.
