New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesReplies
Thanks.
Perhaps I was a tad too vehement in my messages, but to be honest, I thought it was insulting to accuse Mike C. of not having researched far back enough for the name Cormac. It's essentially accusing him of being unscientific or sloppy with the names he adds to the database, while I know how much careful research and work he clearly invests into this website. Besides, how are they to know that he hadn't checked every source available to him? They just assumed something and apparently took it for a fact.
And to top it all off, the person themselves lists questionable sources and fails to provide proper arguments for their claim. Apparently they can't even 1) distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources and 2) do a proper thorough research themselves. So then it's a bit rich to accuse someone else of doing improper research.
Perhaps I was a tad too vehement in my messages, but to be honest, I thought it was insulting to accuse Mike C. of not having researched far back enough for the name Cormac. It's essentially accusing him of being unscientific or sloppy with the names he adds to the database, while I know how much careful research and work he clearly invests into this website. Besides, how are they to know that he hadn't checked every source available to him? They just assumed something and apparently took it for a fact.
And to top it all off, the person themselves lists questionable sources and fails to provide proper arguments for their claim. Apparently they can't even 1) distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources and 2) do a proper thorough research themselves. So then it's a bit rich to accuse someone else of doing improper research.
1