Question all you want. The person questioning, however, should have an inkling of knowledge about the subject before attempting his "gotcha games" with things he found on the internet over lunch break.
To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?
Sort:
ivandh wrote:
trivial knowledge
So the development of Christianity in England is trivial, as is the battle of Mons? Are you sure you know what you are talking about?
In the course of this discussion, some real gems of wisdom have appeared. Here are but two that bear emphasis. Exemplars of the sort of contemporary admonitions that may someday make their way into the Farmer's Almanac:
"[Y]ou can't just google the answer and pretend you know it."
and
"Somehow, you apparently think that just because you googled it, that you magically know what you are talking about."
ivandh wrote:
Seems the conversation has shifted to avoid or overlook the sort of inane questions that elicit the eponymous response, as if a caveat disproves the general rule. It has since devolved into a group of amateur historians showing off their particular trivial knowledge, and condescending toward any who question their infallible wisdom in such affairs.
worth repeating.
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Seems the conversation has shifted to avoid or overlook the sort of inane questions that elicit the eponymous response, as if a caveat disproves the general rule. It has since devolved into a group of amateur historians showing off their particular trivial knowledge, and condescending toward any who question their infallible wisdom in such affairs.
worth repeating.
Nice vocabulary.
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
i'd say he was just cracking a joke.
I'd say he wasn't.
macer75 wrote:
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Seems the conversation has shifted to avoid or overlook the sort of inane questions that elicit the eponymous response, as if a caveat disproves the general rule. It has since devolved into a group of amateur historians showing off their particular trivial knowledge, and condescending toward any who question their infallible wisdom in such affairs.
worth repeating.
Nice vocabulary.
I can cut and paste too!
i hear ya, mac! 
AdamRinkleff wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Seems the conversation has shifted to avoid or overlook the sort of inane questions that elicit the eponymous response, as if a caveat disproves the general rule. It has since devolved into a group of amateur historians showing off their particular trivial knowledge, and condescending toward any who question their infallible wisdom in such affairs.
worth repeating.
Nice vocabulary.
I can cut and paste too!
wow!!
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
AdamRinkleff wrote:
macer75 wrote:
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Seems the conversation has shifted to avoid or overlook the sort of inane questions that elicit the eponymous response, as if a caveat disproves the general rule. It has since devolved into a group of amateur historians showing off their particular trivial knowledge, and condescending toward any who question their infallible wisdom in such affairs.
worth repeating.
Nice vocabulary.
I can cut and paste too!
wow!!
yay!
Rinkleff has done it! it's a great victory.
Wolfbird wrote:
Your preference to asking people here is false. You ask a question and then argue with whomever gives you their answer. It's your personal little trip you're on.
This is totally a false accusation. I have asked several questions of people in these forums and haven't gotten into any arguments. This topic in particular is different because the thought that a $20/month internet subscription and a web browser doesn't equal real knowledge rankles the internet-worshipping googlemeisters to no end.
Wolfbird wrote:
Your preference to asking people here is false. You ask a question and then argue with whomever gives you their answer. It's your personal little trip you're on.
Well worth repeating!
yours.... "the cut and paste bandit".
Senator-Blutarsky a écrit :
Rinkleff has done it! it's a great victory.
It's nothing for our glorious Leader.
Y0_Bro wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Senator-Blutarsky a écrit :
Rinkleff has done it! it's a great victory.
It's nothing for our glorious Leader.
Ive seen some overwhelming stupidity on this thread, but you ivandh, are by far the worst. You act as if you are above everyone and already know everything even though you probably never got past the lower levels of primary school. You then continue to joke as if no one is worthy enough to have a question answered by you. You obviously know all the answers though. You're trash.
Worth repeating!
Y0_Bro wrote:
ivandh wrote:
Senator-Blutarsky a écrit :
Rinkleff has done it! it's a great victory.
It's nothing for our glorious Leader.
Ive seen some overwhelming stupidity on this thread, but you ivandh, are by far the worst. You act as if you are above everyone and already know everything even though you probably never got past the lower levels of primary school. You then continue to joke as if no one is worthy enough to have a question answered by you. You obviously know all the answers though. You're trash.
My goodness, you are a King amongst tools. You have zero comprehension. If the number were above that, I might try to explain it to you.
I'll take some bait and ask you this: In what way does ivandh act as if he's above everyone?
'Cause all I see is him telling it as it is.
Same question to you, Adam.
I think the're just angry that they typtd out 300 post, and he summed it up in 1 sentence.
AlCzervik wrote:
Same question to you, Adam.
Well, his insults imply that he thinks he is "better". However, the real issue is that he is simply spamming the thread by complaining that the original poster is "off topic". However, I think the person that started this thread has a good idea what it is they are trying to talk about, and individuals like Ubik and ivandh are simply trying to derail the conversation with immature quips and barbs.
When I came into this thread, the discussion was clearly about this: Some people (ie: Ubik) think the internet will replace all books, and that doing a Google search is superior to doing research at a library or archive. Other people disagree. Frankly, I don't think any rational person can seriously hold the former opinion, and I obviously hold the latter. As examples, the original poster and myself have posted two examples of important subjects which cannot be understood via an internet search.
Why ivandh feels compelled to troll this thread is beyond me. If he wishes to assert that the development of Christianity in a major European nation is trivial, and one of the major battles of WWII is equally trivial, then I don't think its an exaggeration to suggest that he must view himself on some exceptional plane of importance.
Seems the conversation has shifted to avoid or overlook the sort of inane questions that elicit the eponymous response, as if a caveat disproves the general rule. It has since devolved into a group of amateur historians showing off their particular trivial knowledge, and condescending toward any who question their infallible wisdom in such affairs.