We have to let nonsense be posted, because in the end you dont know what is or is not nonsense. At the beginning there was skepticism of the 'these are forged' claims, by some cogent posters; their refutations had to be dealt with for the claim to stand up. Like a courtroom.
The blog intelligence and FR's greatness is about letting that nonsense survive, but having a feedback amplification mechanism, where the stuff that *is* true, gets lifted above the noice and fluff.
There should be a way to 'rate' threads and articles, so that the best stuff is able to peek above the crowd. Feedback mechanisms like that are good.
I positively agree. It is one of the great things about FR, that our discourse is bound mostly by decency, and for those who really want to know the truth, an expectation that assertions be supported with source material and lucid explanation.
The only point I was trying to make, I think, was that there is much noise on FR. And all of us, myself emphatically included, are prone to make misstatements of fact.
There should be a way to 'rate' threads and articles, so that the best stuff is able to peek above the crowd. Feedback mechanisms like that are good.
I am firm believer in caveat emptor. It is properly the reader's chore to sort out fact from fiction, and to reach his or her own conclusions.