I disagree with your logic here. To my mind, there are many sources that are absolutely not worth wasting any time on who may nevertheless say true things from time to time. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a source that tells only lies.
Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries.
I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?
The guy who attempts to refute an apparently correct study by putting the word "research" in scare quotes doesn't get to complain about other people's quotation marks, but for what it's worth, I'm a local protein guy.
Next time someone who does not share your exact political beliefs (or your orthodoxy in ensuring that his/her tertiary sources have unimpeachable credentials), I suggest you actually read what they're saying and come back with facts. The reality is that in a community of professionals, you're unlikely to find yourself conversing solely with people who agree with your worldview.
The irony is, I probably do agree with your politics, but I find the way you handled this particular wrinkle of the discussion so repellant that I've been driven somewhat apey.
I had totally forgotten that I had put "research" in scare quotes. You're right: it turned out to be unwarranted.
That having been said, I think you misunderstand me. I'm quite eager to learn from people who don't share my beliefs; it's the only reason I spend any time slogging through these comments in the first place. The spirit of my original reply, and what I should have said, is that bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things.
He didn't bring Heritage into it. He sourced a fact to a Heritage report, which turned out to be (surprise!) a fact. Please just stop talking about Heritage. An HN survival skill that has served me in good stead: just say "I was wrong, sorry." People will even upvote you for saying it, because it's so rare for a nerd to say it. You will be amazed how many pointless arguments those words get you out of.
> "bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things."
Only if you choose to let it. Here on HN, we usually don't.
You mention in your profile that the quality of discussion here is "slightly better than most places on the web". This is not an accident; it's a result of our strong community standards. Name-calling or ad hominem is generally rewarded with downvotes. Our preference is to look deeper into data and disagree in productive ways [0], not to get upset at the mention of a politically slanted organization.
You've had a rough introduction to our community. I hope you stay a while, learn our standards, and have a productive time here.
Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries.
I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?