Nope, you don't HAVE to do anything, as I've said before.

I'm just saying it's suspicious that you're never willing to share your sources, whereas it really would be very easy to do so. Almost as though there are no sources to share...
Of course the suspicion is exacerbated by you admitting in a past topic that you think there's no harm in lying to get what you want.

But let's just agree to disagree, and leave it here.

Yes, but when you keep repeating that post after post without ever being willing to share any of your 'sources', it just reads as "I have no sources to support my claim". So that's why I wrote that those are just different words for what I said earlier ("Ah, no sources then to support your claim, as usual").

Plus, I have a credible source that tells me that you're making up most, if not all of your sources.

So yes, we disagree.

Yes they are, so yes we do.

Those are just different words for what I said.
Tomato (tuh·mei·tow), tomato (tuh·maa·tow).

Ah, no sources then to support your claim, as usual.
Ok.

PsyGuy wrote:
> I can absolutely write a thesis and not have any sources at all.

But you claim to have sources (reliable ones!), but fail to share them. That wouldn't go over well in University.

PsyGuy wrote:
> Thats why I wrote "Im sure if you ever went to Uni you would know that
> there are resources other than books". I realize that I can cite
> whatever sources I want.

Of course, that's what I was saying - you can use other sources. But if you did go to Uni, you'd know that you have to actually mention them then.
Try writing a thesis, and instead of mentioning the actual sources (books, articles or other) you'd only write "I only write from experience, research and trusted and reliable sources". I'm quite sure actual universities would fail you for that.

PsyGuy wrote:
> You stated "Then you can just mention the book and the page
> number", Im sure if you ever went to Uni you would know that there are
> resources other than books.

Yes, that's why I said "You can mention the source, even if it's not a book."


> Well not be taken very seriously by you, I was unaware you represented some
> coalition within IE.

I don't, and have never claimed to do so.


> Im not invalidating anything, my claims need to be true thats all, not
> being able to support the sky being blue to a blind person, doesnt make it
> not blue.

Yes, they need to be true, and your constant refusal to share sources make it less than persuasive that they actually are, because they not verifiable. The fact that you almost never produce a source makes it especially suspect.
And neither of us is blind, but you claim the sky is a different color than I perceive it to be, so I'd like to be able to see how you've reached your conclusion.

PsyGuy wrote:
> No.

So, do you think there are (or aren't) official criteria?


> That they possess characteristics of formalness

And what gives the criteria you posted 'characteristics of formalness'?


> No, Im stating that I never claimed that there is an official list of tier
> 1 ISs and I never claimed that there wasnt an official list of tier 1 ISs.

So are you of the opinion that there is an official list?

PsyGuy wrote:
> We disagree.

Yep.

PsyGuy wrote:
> Not all non-digital data exists in the form of a book.

You can mention the source, even if it's not a book.
If you ever went to university, this should be very basic stuff for you.


PsyGuy wrote:
> Nor am I aware of any obligation or mandate to share reference or citations with @Heliotrope.
> Im not subject to conforming data to the prevailing opinion of @Heliotrope
> nor to satisfy @Heliotropes wants.

I'm not saying that you have to. All I'm saying is that someone who makes claims but can't back them up with sources will not be taken very seriously, so by always copy-pasting "I only post from experience, research and trusted and reliable sources" without a willingness to share those sources, you're invalidating any point you're trying to make, and not just to me.

PsyGuy wrote:
> @Heliotrope ignores a number of NC programs at first tier ISs (IE.. A*,
> IGCSE, baccalauréat, abitur, etc.) The US NC and AP program are not the
> only NC SLL qualifications at first tier ISs.

Nope, haven't ignored them.

PsyGuy wrote:
> I dont owe you anything, Im not obligated or mandated to comply with your
> requests.

Nope, but it doesn't help your case if you always refuse to tell us where you get your information from.


> Not all data is digitally retrievable and associated with "links"
> as you describe. Original works of literature for example.

Then you can just mention the book and the page number. Easy peasy. Lemon squeezy.


> I only post from experience, research and trusted and
> reliable sources.

Well, that's not the prevailing opinion, since you're so unwilling to show your work. And we're teachers, so we tend to want to see it.

I'm afraid your definition is at odds with that of the general populace.

> I never claimed they were my criteria, but that there were formal criteria
> I have provided in previous publications.
> I never claimed that there were official criteria.
> I never claimed that there werent official criteria.

Are you afraid to say that you think that there are (or aren't) official criteria?
And what makes the criteria you posted 'formal' criteria?


> I never claimed that there is an official list of tier 1 ISs.
> I never claimed that there wasnt an official list of tier 1 ISs.

So you're not saying anything, basically.
Again, are you afraid to say that you think that there is (or isn't) an official list?
Or are you just trolling again?

PsyGuy wrote:
> Meaningless too @Heliotrope does not in fact indicate an absence of
> meaning, or that meaningfulness can and does exist outside of @Heliotrope.
> I state "I only post from experience, research and trusted and
> reliable sources. " because I only post from experience, research and
> trusted and reliable sources.

You keep posting "I only post from experience, research and trusted and reliable sources" when you're asked to show where you found the data that backs up your claims.
You never post any links to actual sources, you just copy-paste your "I only post ...", so maybe it's not without meaning, but more that its meaning has changed for those who have read enough posts on this forum and are familiar with your non-data approach to discussions. What it has changed to I will leave to your imagination.