Facts? Don't confuse me with facts!

[Pandora]

the Safety was on....

Dang I thought I had all my bases covered

The safety was not on and in fact was broken!

OH and the bullet was silver (just incase)

 

[pocketfullofshells]

What a silly example, you claim to have Gipper on ignore so how would you know what he said!

I ment if he was not on ignore, or pre ignore time...its one of the reason he is on ignore

also I still do see his nonsense at times, when its quoted

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Dang I thought I had all my bases covered

The safety was not on and in fact was broken!

OH and the bullet was silver (just incase)

The bullet was defective....

 

[Pandora]

The bullet was defective....

UNCLE!!!!!

 

[GenSeneca]

If a scientist from the UN says one thing about global warming, and one from Exxon says something...I know what one I give more weight to...

Either way you go there, you're still choosing someone with a political agenda.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Either way you go there, you're still choosing someone with a political agenda.

Yes but someone with a track record of correct info should be given more weight over someone who has a poor one. Also Rob tends to be clear on opinion vs fact...gipper does not know the difference.

 

[PLC1]

So would you admit that some opinions carry more weight than others?

Of course.

Mine, for example, carry much more weight than yours. (just kidding!)

An opinion that is backed up by facts has some worth, the more facts, the more worth. One that isn't is simply wild speculation. One that is countered by facts is worthless and should be (but hardly ever is) discarded. That is the premise of the opening post, isn't it?