Ah, somebody else who understands academics and sources. A blog is about as valuable as a scribble on a napkin from a nobody.
We shouldn’t do that, don’t be ridiculous. You don’t know what my viewpoint is, evidenced by the lump of words you followed up with. They didn’t operate in Auschwitz, it doesn’t mean they didn’t have their part in the evils of the Nazi party.
I wouldn't but I'm sure some do. Probably the same people who believe everything they read on Facebook or Twitter.
If it's stating the truth or a fact why not? seems like rather than reading the words and working out if it is true or not the place is was written decides what is true or not. So having ruled out the Daily Mail, Express, Sun, Mirror, HDM, blogs, Facebook, twitter, what should we read to get the true facts?
So, is it right to put a 100 year old man on trial just now. He would have been in his early twenties when the war was raging. Does a young twenty something who probably followed orders (or else) deserve this? It brings the war right up to today where you can be the decider, you with all your life experiences. This guy has had almost eight decades to reflect, away from the physical, mental, social conforming stress zone of a major war. So,what do you think. Reminds me of Squid Game - what we are under duress versus what we are under stable everyday situations might surprise many of us. https://nypost.com/2021/10/07/100-year-old-former-nazi-camp-guard-goes-on-trial-in-germany/
I have no idea if we are close to a sale or not but something has to happen soon as the apathy amongst supporters is growing.
When I was marking undergrad stuff for my old department, students quoting wiki and blogs was the bain of my life. Well, that and blatant plagiarism....
Correcting spelling mistakes wasn't the bane of your life then? Especially when having a bath in France.
Not me mate, I just take it as I find it. Sometimes they write **** click bait stories at other times they hit the nail on the head and get it right. Certainly won't dismiss anything and everything in there just because it's The Daily Mail.
Nope, most essays weren't casually written through the filter of huawei predictive text. Plus, presentation was only 10% of the mark, so they could still get a 2:1 based on content as long as it was legible. Very few were good enough to exceed that mark, so very rarely needed to pull the spelling, syntax and grammar apart on a submission.
You don't need to dismiss the Daily Mail, newspapers, while biased are at least a verifiable source of information. Blogs and Wikipedia are not.
