https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note-12 ...

linkregister · on Nov 17, 2015

I disagree that a request for sources is unwarranted in this situation. Your language assumed the reader agreed with your viewpoint based off of not-commonly-known facts: "of course... stupid because..."

I understand your decision to reply with snark to a snarky comment, but in this instance, "src pls!" does in fact add to the discussion.

rdtsc · on Nov 17, 2015

I think if they are interested in the conversation it is worth throwing more than a drive-by "srs pls" comment into it.

For example it could have been "Well I think the budget is a bit off, CIA itself doesn't get that money, did you mean the total intelligence budget".

Or "Agreed, do you have any sources for the fighters who switched side? that would be interesting to see".

Imagine you are sitting by the fire and discussing something, and someone just chimes with "src pls", "srs pls", I wouldn't consider them contributing to the discussion, rather derailing it.

So I agree, source would help here, did provide sources but responded snarky to give the person asking for them a hint (not so subtle, perhaps) that in general that is not a constructive way to hold a conversation.

knowaveragejoe · on Nov 17, 2015

That budget includes all of the intelligence apparatus' budget, ongoing research programs, so on and so forth. So likely not even close to the $100B mentioned.

Secondly, I asked for source to support the claim that "all rebels switched to ISIS", but apparently you don't have that and are just of the opinion that that is what has occurred.