never let facts get in the way of a good story

@jb78000 (15139)
September 7, 2009 5:18am CST
this is rule number one in this section. we all understand that when you come across a tempting rumour spending a couple of minutes checking to see how accurate it is can be utterly exhausting. so relax, facts are pesky little things best treated as optional.
4 people like this
4 responses
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
7 Sep 09
Facts? Those aren't important, didn't you know?
4 people like this
@jb78000 (15139)
7 Sep 09
actually they are pests. i have developed some 'factspray' which i am willing to sell at a discount to anyone who has noticed facts sneaking into their posts.
3 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
7 Sep 09
Oh...I know several here that could use that. You know when they twist the facts and sorta have them right but, not completely. Think it will work on that? LOL
4 people like this
@jb78000 (15139)
7 Sep 09
they might not want it when glittering careers as tabloid reporters await
3 people like this
@tdemex (3540)
• United States
7 Sep 09
Facts? According to whom? If you look hard enough, especially on line you can find what you want to hear! Consider the source, should always be a factor! The use of according to "My Sources" is always a good one, or the old "according to unnamed sources" is another! Boy, the Internet sure has helped our Red and Blue war of words, don't ya think? Me I'll stick with something impartial like "CNN" ! LOL! tdemex
2 people like this
@tdemex (3540)
• United States
7 Sep 09
Or was it "Fox news?"
3 people like this
@ZephyrSun (7381)
• United States
7 Sep 09
Don't ya mean wnd.com? LOL
4 people like this
@jb78000 (15139)
7 Sep 09
you don't get much more reliable than wnd. the onion maybe, but few other sources.
3 people like this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Sep 09
True, "facts" don't always live up to their title. But there is something worse than "facts" that don't live up to their name, that is actual facts that The Central Committee tried to keep from seeing the light of day before they rammed a bill through without being read.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
8 Sep 09
But if the bill is rammed through without giving anyone a chance to read or discuss it... the facts come too late.
@jb78000 (15139)
8 Sep 09
well yes, you should take everything you read with a pinch of salt. however on the whole a rumour can be checked.
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
8 Sep 09
ah, that's something different ted. i'm not going to argue the rights and wrongs of this one, what i was having a go at was posting rumours that are inaccurate and can very easily be checked.
1 person likes this
@dawnald (85130)
• Shingle Springs, California
8 Sep 09
lmao Rule number 2 - if somebody publishes something on the internet and you agree with it and it's basically saying what you want to hear, believe it, post it, push it...
2 people like this
@dawnald (85130)
• Shingle Springs, California
5 Nov 09
I hoppy about the best response. :-)
1 person likes this
@jb78000 (15139)
8 Sep 09
yes, that is also very important
2 people like this