A US Marine Corps guidance released in March states that people who suffer from skin conditions like PFB may be discharged; critics argue the policy is ‘racist.’
Those were quotes… not sources <edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I’m not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.
General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc. […] to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
Source
any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.
The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…
These anecdotes all regard oxygen masks for aviators, so it would be too bold to extrapolate that the same rings true for gas masks, Ritchie explained. Still, it’s a start, and there is also a recent study from the civilian world that could indicate positive outcomes for beard-hopefuls in the U.S. military. The 2018 study showed that facial hair negatively influences the fit factor for half-face negative-pressure respirators as the hair gets longer and more dense. However, beard-wearers can still “achieve adequate fit factor scores even with substantial facial hair in the face seal area,” the study authors wrote. In fact, 98% of the study participants who had an eighth-inch of beard passed the fit test. Those results are encouraging because the respirators used in the study are pretty close to the M-50 gas masks used in the military today in terms of material and fit, Ritchie said.
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
You didn’t refute his source at all.
Those were quotes…
not sources<edit>weakly sourced without any validation</edit>. I specifically ignored them because they were <edit>effectively</edit> unsourced. I’m not going to hunt down that quote to validate it was ever even said.General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
But fine, I addressed them following their comment. Read about it there.
Edit: pedantry I guess?
I am really trying to square this circle…
Quote
Source
The above are quotes… from a source… in this case the sources being https://www.dictionary.com/browse/quote and https://www.dictionary.com/browse/source
The problem with simply using a name as a “source” in this context… This lemmy user didn’t talk to that Lt. Col. so that lemmy user can’t be a source to say that the Col said anything… They took that quote from somewhere else… and didn’t cite that source. So it goes unsourced as the origin of where the quote is derived was not disclosed. Much the same as we both know that General Grievous from my previous comment is a fictional character and definitely didn’t say anything of that sort… Yet I “quoted” it… with no source to prove that anything was ever actually said. Quoting something without a citation to the source where you obtain the quote is effectively pointless on the internet.
Edit: Google shows a number of sources for the quote… https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ being one of them.
This same article goes on to show the same study that I posted elsewhere though… with a bizarre stance on the results though…
Not sure why 98% is acceptable to them… but is what it is. I don’t particularly find the number acceptable considering it’s entirely preventable deaths that could be stopped.
See… I provided the source… and the quote. There is no concern about me having made shit up because you can see it for yourself without hunting for the source yourself.
You can type all that, still funny when you know that a quote with a name is a source. Since you know the quotes source is that named person. Not really relevant if it is a correct quote or not, as a sourced lie is a thing as well.
I mean its right there in your own example “…to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.”
Cool then you must accept my previous statement of
General Grievous says “TranscendentalEmpire@lemmy.today is lying about the quotes they provided. Lt. Col. Simon Ritchie was relieved of duty for malpractice years ago dishonorably.”
It’s a quote, attributed to a name. Right?
Edit: Would you feel better if I change the verbiage to “I wasn’t given a good source” or “validated source”?
Yes, and that is also why you look up quotes and sources.
Just so you know though… that was in the definition for “quote” not source… but I’ve changed the verbiage.
Oh I know that was for the quote part as those are very much also describing a “source”
We’re not in a trial case…
If I wanted to be as much of a pain in the ass. None of your claims about being in the service are admissible in nerd court apparently.