For something like the last six hours this has been the Jose/David D show. I respectfully withdraw. You may continue to sing and dance if you choose.

It isn’t pointed out. It doesn’t need to be pointed out. It’s irrelevant. Explain how knowing the date the incident occurred affects the meaning of the post.

I understand URL’s and how things are “time stamped” on the Web.

Then why would you use this to make such a dumb argument?

You seem to still lack any understanding with Urban Legends and their genesis,and why the correct date would be important in the context of an Urban Legend.

No. You’ve just failed miserably to show that there was any misrepresentation of the date.

I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation of this story being current. Can you point out to me anywhere where the story is presented as a year old?

I gave specific examples of why I thought it was current. In your opinion they are “iffy”. Go and read the Examiner article that BA linked to–let me know in that article where the story is given its correct time context. I understand URL’s and how things are “time stamped” on the Web.

You seem to still lack any understanding with Urban Legends and their genesis,and why the correct date would be important in the context of an Urban Legend.

Yes. I conceded that you didn’t attack his argument. I never said you did. You asked me a dumb hypothetical question about how I would react to a creationist, and I answered it.

You’re okay with me “examining” the story as an Urban Legend, yet you fail to understand how the “date thing” is essential to the Urban Legend idea. Go do some homework.

You said

”This is obviously NOT a current news story as presented by BA.”

When people pointed out that he never presented it that way, you were unable to concede that you were wrong. Instead you made an iffy grammatical argument, and pointed to the date in the hyperlink as evidence that you were right. You don’t even understand that it’s common practice for post on the web to contain the date they were posted within the URL and you want me to do some homework?

I didn’t make up an issue, and you still haven’t demonstrated where I attacked BA’s argument. Ignoring is not attacking.

You’re okay with me “examining” the story as an Urban Legend, yet you fail to understand how the “date thing” is essential to the Urban Legend idea. Go do some homework.

Yes. You ignored his argument, and made up your own silly issue.

Maybe the date is irrelevant to the story, but it immediately seemed like an Urban Legend to me, with some apocryphal story that is recycled again and again.

It sounds like an urban legend to me too. If you stick to examining that, I have no problem, but any way I look at it, the date thing is a non-issue.

I would never attack somebody’s argument based on irrelevant facts.

I never attacked BA’s argument. Go back and read my comments.

I wasn’t the only reader of this post to be dismayed by at the least an apparent lack of attention to detail. It’s almost as if BA did not read beyond the very story he linked to. Maybe the date is irrelevant to the story, but it immediately seemed like an Urban Legend to me, with some apocryphal story that is recycled again and again.

Not all facts are irrelevant, but in this case, the date the incident happened is.

That story, and its link, implied a degree of currency.

No they don’t. It’s common practice for many sites to include the date of a post in the URL, just like the date stamp on your comments. It has nothing to do with the content of the post.

Again, would you expect this kind of “scholarship” or reporting from a creationist, or an antivaxxer?

I would never attack somebody’s argument based on irrelevant facts.

And, to pre-empt, if an anti-vaxxer or a creationist presented a story in the same way I wouldn’t care because the age of the story has nothing to do with the substance of this particular story. If the timing of the story was important to the substance, say quoting an old study that has become obsolete because of new evidence, then we’d have a problem.

In my opinion, the link is presented as a current story, when it clearly is not. My point is that BA should have presented this as a story that is over a year old; it would not have detracted from the point of the story to be clear about its origin. The fact that it is not immediately clear when the event occurred is a definite distraction.

Otherwise though as far as the Indian story goes, Phil links to a current story that quotes an old story. I don’t think you can read much more into it than that. I can’t tell whether it is presented as a current story or not and I don’t think it matters anyway. It is being used to illustrate an example of pareidolia gone wrong.
Or is your point Phil should state that the site he is linking to is from yesterday but that story is actually referencing a year old news story on another website?

Gosh, you are right–facts are irrelevant.

Your moon landing analogy is a big FAIL, as it is a well-known historical event. 50 people in India staring at the sun? Not so well-known. That story, and its link, implied a degree of currency.

Again, would you expect this kind of “scholarship” or reporting from a creationist, or an antivaxxer?

That’s a stretch. And as stated before, it’s also completely irrelevant.

You linked to a story that had a CURRENT dateline.

Yes. Phil should have contacted the owner of the site and had them post date the URL to the time which the event occurred before he linked to it. I mean, we all know that, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise, we must assume a story happened on or around the the date in the URL. I hope that the next time Phil posts on the moon landing he’s careful to post date it to 1969 to avoid confusion.

There seems to be some misunderstanding in your comment. I am only commenting on the Examiner article about the 50 people in India. Phil presented THAT link as being current, where it most obviously is not. In my most recent comment above, I did not realize BA was talking about the homeopathy article, so my bad.

I never mentioned the homeopathy article. I only am questioning BA’s presentation of the Indian link as being current, which it is not, and which does not mention the Supreme Court of Australia.

“so does it matter when the events actually occurred?” Yeah–facts actually do matter. Please read my comments above.

You’re not reading all the links David. The supreme court of Oz is mentioned in the article linked with the following text…
“the parents who used homeopathy and killed their child”
It is a current news story in Oz because it is going through the courts right now and has nothing to do with the Indian story.

“I never presented nor implied the story of the homeopathy death as being current.” Yes you did.

Here’s what you put in your hyperlink: “50 people in India damage their eyes looking at the Sun hoping to see the Virgin Mary,” not “damaged their eyes.” You linked to a story that had a CURRENT dateline. No where did you mention anything about the Supreme Court in Australia, nor did the linked story. BTW, what does the Supreme Court of Australia have to do with a story in India?

The story may be true. But, as I mentioned above in my comments, when you can’t get something like the dates right, the whole story becomes suspect. Would you expect this kind of “scholarship” or reporting from a creationist, or an antivaxxer?

I never presented nor implied the story of the homeopathy death as being current. It’s from several years ago, but is making the news again because the case is going before the Supreme Court in Australia. But how does the date make any difference at all to the story?

Second, the article about the people getting blinded quotes my own research quite a bit for my first book. Solar retinopathy is actually fairly well studied.

Third, if an argument uses a slippery slope that does not mean it’s perforce wrong. A slippery slope is, after all, a slippery slope. In this case, we know that people have a need to believe in the irrational; if they aren’t religious than in many cases they replace that with superstition, or New Age nonsense, or the like. The point here is, teaching them to believe in things without evidence, and reinforcing that with all manners of fantasy beliefs, will lead to a profound lack of critical thinking in other areas as well.

LET’S EAT!

J/P=?
(I spell my name… Danger)

Oh Blinding Light,
Oh Light that Blinds
I Can Not See-ee!
Look Out For Me.

Ooof!

Because sometimes, y’know, on the net some people can say whatever they want without backing it up, presenting any evidence. Sometimes they claim authority they don’t really have either. A lot of people even claim to be doctors, when the pedigree of their degrees is is, um, questionable. I’ve written about this before.

So I assume you have tons of evidence to back this up, evidence that so many scientists and doctors have looked for but never found because the studies were flawed, or faked, or made up.

But until then, I’ll go with what the real tests have shown all along: homeopathic “remedies” are just plain old water, do no good, and in fact can kill when used to replace real medicine, as in the tragic case I discussed in the post above.