Originally posted by mavracer
Quote:
I wasn't necessarily disputing your results, I was more replying to Double Naught Spy's post. I don't really think I'm being hypocritical unless I go about making wild claims with nothing to back them up, something I try not to do. I always try, whenever possible, to post links or cite sources so that people know I'm not just pulling things out of my posterior. Also, the handle is supposed to be read as "Webley Mark Five" as in one of these:
The tone of you posts left me with the feeling that even with post counts of over 1000 that mine and wnycollector's personal experiances were to be written off as bovine fecal matter or wild claims pulled from our posterior.
I'm well aware of your handle and recognized what it stands for.With a post count like yours added to the fact I've read a few of those posts I would tend to give you the benefit of the doubt.
If your not going to use the senior members of this board for some good information. Then get a chrono and do it yourself.
Again, I wasn't necessarily disputing yours or wyncollector's posts. I've been around this board long enough to know which members to listen to and which ones to ignore. When a member posts reasonably and thoughtfully and can usually back up what he says with some sort of documentation (as both you and wyncollector seem to be able to) then what they post carries some weight in my opinion. However, I think we can both agree that a post count in and of itself doesn't necessarily make someone a credible source, it's about quality more than quantity. While they aren't particularly common, there are a few members around here with fairly high post counts who seem more interested in stirring the pot than providing useful information. The reason that I specifically asked for sources other than forum posts is because I don't frequent any other forums beyond what may pop up in a Google search. Had I not been so specific, I'd have likely gotten links to other forums whose members I am not familiar with and therefore I would be unable to make any educated judgments about their credibility.
Also, there's the issue of the internet echo chamber. Suppose, for example, that you and wyncollector chronographed some DT ammo and its velocities weren't up to par. A single incident could easily be attributed to a chronograph malfunction, abnormal atmospheric conditions, or simply a bad batch of ammo. However, suppose that you and wyncollector both post this experience on this forum. Unless you both specifically stated that you chrono'd the ammo together, one incident would seem like two. Now further suppose that you and wyncollector are both registered on Glocktalk and THR under different handles and you also both post your experiences on those forums as well, now one incident seems like six. You see, even though both you and wyncollector are being 100% honest about your experience, it now appears to be a much more common phenomenon than it really is.
Originally posted by FEG
Quote:
If someone goes by their real name and gains a reputation for being full of bovine manure, they can't get away from their reputation very easily. Because of this, people are more apt to be honest when they aren't anonymous. An anonymous internet poster, however, can spew whatever equine feces he likes and if he discredits himself, he needs only move to another forum or re-register under a different handle.
There are quite a few logical fallacies here.
1) What if my name is John Smith or David Johnson? Is that "real" enough?
Depends on the context. If John Smith is referenced in conjunction with an article he wrote in a well known publication or his work with some well-known organization, yes. If he's referenced in conjunction with the John Smith Blog, not so much.
2) If someone is "discredited" under their "real" name, nothing prevents them from assuming another identity on another forum. If they want to be real jerks, they could even use a pseudonym that appears to be their real name. If I called myself "Karl Sosabowski," people might assume this is my real name. It isn't.
This is why I was looking for sources other than forum posts.
3) People might have literally hundreds of reasons for using an internet handle. For example, my father and I have the same first name, last name, and middle initial. (Our middle names are different.) My father is a published author (mostly Versatile Gun Dog); I'm not. Amongst many other reasons, I don't use my "real" name because I don't want people to confuse me with my father.
True, there are many reasons that people use internet handles. However, as I don't know why a given person has chosen to use a handle, I can't simply assume that that person is honest.
4) Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. Someone could be full of it 99.9% of the time, but when they're right, they're right.
If someone is notoriously full of BS, I don't really have any good way of determining what 0.01% of their information is good.
