




Moderators: Moderators, Junior Moderators
little freakqoraxeey wrote:shrib .lool .. look at the other topic i made
![]()
![]()
![]()
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.
![]()
![]()
![]()
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.
greenday wrote:Qorax ala Alphaa lagu soo diray manta![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
Shirib wrote:little freakqoraxeey wrote:shrib .lool .. look at the other topic i made
![]()
![]()
![]()
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.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.
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.