SomaliNet Forums

Qorax ala Alphaa lagu soo diray manta

qoraxeey wrote:shrib .lool .. look at the other topic i made

little freak

qoraxeey wrote:

Alphanumeric wrote: Agreed. This site, however hyperbolic responses may be, reflects the opinion of a particular segment of people. This site is a document. I see no reason to shun citing it as an observational piece to better understand viewpoints. And certainly not if used as anecdotal.

I've had enough. Let's do this.

Niya wrote:Anything posted on a public domain is a fair game.
It also depends what the subject is about and how rigorous the research is. Is the information gleaned from Somalinet being used to substantiate a theory, proof/disprove a point or explain a phenomenon? Within what framework is information from a public domain being used? Is it within a scholarly thesis, a opinion piece, satire etc etc. One thing is for sure, this site is a microsome of the Somali psyche.

material i have posted here has been used by others before, i really do not mind at all, the important thing is that the Forum is moving forward and maybe more serious intellectuals join and contribute to the Forum.

Somalinet forum

greenday wrote:Qorax ala Alphaa lagu soo diray manta

Shirib wrote:

qoraxeey wrote:shrib .lool .. look at the other topic i made

little freak

How f-king sad.

They reference Somalinet? This site is consisted of trolls. Is this what academia has been reduced to? Are professors and authors this patheic to use the opinions of such and such from this website?

Im speechless. Opinions eventually becomes fact.

Facts change over time.

To help post more of this:

[youtube]AMUjZwFzF7c&feature=related[/youtube]

Somalis are a happy bunch.

Alphanumeric wrote:Majority of books are simply opinions. History is rewritten annually. How does any of it matter? I see no difference. Sources from "accredited" and "expert" so-called intellectuals are just the same; people's opinions.

This is a very bad reason. Experts are people who have specialised in a field, it is a lot more than just opinions. Now if the extracts from SNet are recorded as opinions and just information in the context of a forum then that is different and credibility is not lost. But the idea that there are people who present what is said in this forum as fact to others...that is concerning.

Often, credibility is a facade.

Be that as it may, this facade is too easy to pick up on.

When it comes to history, fact comes from only he who screams the loudest and is heard by the most.

Get to yellin.

Alphanumeric wrote:When it comes to history, fact comes from only he who screams the loudest and is heard by the most.

Get to yellin.

Alpha is very right.

Expertise on Africa, particualrly, on Somalia and Somalis write whatever they want and make a lame reference. I was astonished to read a recent book about Somalia in which an old-expertise on Somalia writes about Banadiri - xamar-cad-cad somalis. While she dismissed the geneological contribution of the Arabis to the Somali race as an ancient tale, she tried to prove the origins of some xamar-cad people ( Galadi? I have to check this) 1800 arrivals. Her references were telephone interviews with people who lived in Nairobi ( in 2006 and later).

She also mentions that one xamar-cad-acad went to help the darwish and brought them guns and immunitions, prior to that she says the dervishes had arrows.

so yes, if you are white ''expert'' on AAfrica, you can anything for reference, but if you are black/third Worlder, you need a ''proper'' reference. And I mean, a proper reference. Awhite person's reference.