Nothing said in one sentence can completely cover a topic.
I think your two points are valid, but a big factor in the relative importance of the content vs. the author is the type of information.
Bringing this back to The Monastery, knowing who the author is can give you valuable hints as to what your next move will be. For certain monks here, I am best served by assuming they are always correct (i.e. I will rarely have to backtrack due to failure in their information), for others monks I seek backup or other opinions, and for anonymonks I am left with whatever skill is evident in the presentation of the information, but I will usually seek more verification than if it is attributed to a monk I have prior experence with. Then there are the monks for which you must always look for the hidden text ;-)
Finally, let's not overthink this - it isn't much different from judging the information you may get from a family member, cow-orker, pimply-faced kid flogging DVDs at an electronics chain, or a stranger in the street. All you need is critical thinking. You still have to ask yourself whether what you are hearing makes sense, whether there is any reason to check on it (e.g. the level of risk involved), and whether they have any reason to be dishonest. The only difference here is you can't (always) hear the stiffled giggles from the author who is typing.
--
I'd like to be able to assign to an luser
In reply to Re: Examine what is said, not who speaks." -- from BrowserUK's sig
by Albannach
in thread Examine what is said, not who speaks." -- from BrowserUK's sig
by Sifmole
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |