I think some on here, Knuck included, have consistent enough that it's easy enough to decide how much validity you can assign. New posters wouldn't have that, of course.Absolutely agree, Life, more art than science. And a lot of folks on these boards--particularly here in the OJG threads--have chosen to take some things, and some sources, on faith.
That's cool. Everyone decides for themselves what to believe and why.
I'm absolutely good with people keeping their insider sources safe by not giving too much info away that could be used to identify them.
I'm also absolutely good with people asking folks who seem to have insider info how they have that info, and other questions to help ascertain whether THEY should jump on board and have faith, too.
The only thing I'm not real comfortable with is folks telling other folks they can't ask. That doesn't seem to me healthy for the community.
As for me, I'm one of those who believes there are far (FAR) more wanna-bes and trolls sharing "inside info" on these boards than there are people with true information. I err on the side of doubt; if I see a person provide information that no one else has, and that isn't obvious, and then that information comes true, I begin having faith in them. I can tell you that there are at MOST two people active on this board who have done that. [no, neither of them is named DeerHunter, heh].
But that's just me. People will come to their own conclusions however they wish. Let's just don't beat them up for trying to understand the community landscape.
Personally, I have not, or will ever, 100% hang my hat on any one person's assessment. Trends, baby, trends.
In total agreement with questioning EVERYTHING though. It's one of my mantras. However new folks would be better served doing some background work on these threads as opposed to demanding sources. JMO