2012 Pole Shift

This article makes it sound like this information is a fact. It needs to make clear that this Web site is just one person's theory.

It's wrong to say that the Earth is going to start spinning in a different direction and that catastrophes are going to happen, just because one Web site says so.

Well, it's what you discover and are willing to share. I don't believe you have the right to make that judgement. Some people believe in God while others don't. Does that make the opinion of that person wrong? It's one person's opinion after all. It's what the author thinks. If you disagree fine.

You're saying it as if it's a fact. The article should at least mention that it's a theory.

Have you checked with any reputable science sources about this? How can anyone say with any certainty exactlywhat year such a thing would happen?

I think it's irresponsible to say that the Earth *will* starting turning in a different direction and that catastrophes *will* happen.

"Some people believe in God while others don't."
--Yes, but if someone posts a Web site saying that God is going to cause major catastrophes in 2012, I think most people will know enough to realize that it's someone's opinion. This article presents the issue as science.

There is a link to the article. You can read and make your own judgment. I never said I believed any of it or that it was the truth. Do I believe it? No. Does the author believe it - apparently. I'm just stating what the author said. If you read that and believe it than you have a right to your opinion. It's on you to do further research and figure it out.

"I never said I believed any of it or that it was the truth. "
Well, yes you did... you wrote the article as if it was fact: (I've added emphasis to illustrate)

"The next polar shift or reversal will happen in 2012. In 2012, the North pole becomes the South Pole and the South Pole becomes the North Pole. This means that the earth will rotate in the opposite direction. This will also mean huge catastrophes."

That's not exactly leaving any room for doubt or interpretation, is it?

Yes, i read part of the Web site... it sounds like a million other end-of-the-world scenarios that have been out there for years, many of which predicted the end of the world years ago.

"It's on you to do further research and figure it out."
No, YOU should do research before you post something. So you take no responsibility for putting highly suspect information up on the Web that might scare and confuse people? Great attitude.

You are a real bully. Too bad. Here we go again. You did this to me once before. Imagine that.

Idlewild, this is a Xomblurb. As you will note, when you fill out a box for a Xomblurb, the second box is for a summary. As a result, the writer should not interject their own opinion into a summary.. that is reserved for a comment on the article. If i asked you to summarize today's news events, I would hope you would refrain from adding your own opinion. If you did, that would be an editorial and not a summary.

The person who wrote the blurb is presenting a Web site that presents an opinion about the future of the Earth, but she's phrasing it as if it's a fact.

Where does it say that a writer should not interject their own opinion into a summary? To me that's one of the most valuable things a writer can do... Let's say I suggest a movie-review site. If I say what I like and don't like about the site, that's giving the reader more information so they can decide whether they want to visit the site, and what they can expect when they get there.

If you don't like to add opinion into your posts, that's fine. There's no rule for it or against it. You and I seem to have different ideas of what can be in a post. That doesn't make one of us "right" and the other "wrong," in my opinion.

"If i asked you to summarize today's news events, I would hope you would refrain from adding your own opinion. If you did, that would be an editorial and not a summary."

?? I don't see your point. This xomblurb is not a news article. And I don't see what's wrong with giving one's opinion on a topic when directing a person to the original source article.

Sorry, guys, hope I am not intruding...

Just happened to read these comments and wanted to say this to dr2dr and champagnedreams

Idlewild is just trying to guide you to do the right thing, that is "rewrite" the blurb so as to insert some element of doubt in it, specially if you yourself are not convinced about what, the webpage or author that you are pointing to, is saying. That way you are actually "not" taking any responsibility for the claims that are being made.

Thus, you can say: This "may" happen, or the author "believes" that the poles will shift by 2012 and that this event "if" happened that way "may" cause calamities! Or whatever! You get the drift.

dr2dr, I think, Idlewild has been on this site long enough to know what a "blurb" means. give him some credit guys...!

idlewild: - Sorry for interfering! My apologies. Hope you don't mind my intrusion.

(Just reminded me of the time when I had joined the site and used to get irritated with similar comments made by mythman on most of my blurbs!) I realized now (after so many days on the site) that I was wrong about him! He is now in my buddy list!

Thanks for the comment, Rawnak. It just seemed troubling to me that the blurb was talking about this doomsday scenario as if it were true, and people searching online might think it's a fact, based on finding results like this. Sure, people are entitled to their opinions, but I think people have to be responsible when posting about things that claim to reliably predict disaster.

As for the xomblurb rules, I don't claim to know more than anyone else, but there don't seem to be any hard and fast guidelines on what you can/should say or not say. It's up to the writer, as long as they don't mislead the reader.

By the way, if anyone reading this xomblurb feels that the world is going to end in 2012 and wants to get rid of their money before then, feel free to email me and I'll be willing to take it off your hands. ;-)

about which you should be an expert. Idle is trying to help you.

dr2dr is getting close to a warning for all the dupes. Nah. I'd have already given him a gentle warning.

Maybe I should try to explain something. . .

There has never been a swapping of the north and south geographic poles. These are the spin-axis poles. This is the axis of rotation. Imagine stopping the earths rotation. That is a lot of angular momentum. Hasn't happened. The earth's crust is not strong enough for a manuever that would involve pole swapping.

The north/south pole changes are only in the magnetic poles, and that is not an over-nighter change.

Some times the earth is without a significant or directed magnetic field for several thousand years.

s'long

As a result, the writer should not interject their own opinion into a summary.

I must have missed that rule. Please explain why it's not appropriate to "editorialize" at all when posting a link to an article.

I posted a Xomblurb that featured an interview with Aaron Russo. I made it quite clear that I don't agree with many of his far fetched conspiracy theories, but I outlined a few points on which I do agree with him. Was that wrong?

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

Join Xomba

I made constructive criticism pointing out that your blurb is presenting incorrect information. Instead of considering that possibility, you got defensive, said that your information was up to interpretation (comparing it to believing in God!), and called me a bully.

I've pointed out incorrect info in your blurbs a number of times, to try to be helpful (you even thanked me a couple of times). Don't worry, I won't do it again.

If you want to post blurbs that have incorrect information, missing words, sloppy typing, etc., go right ahead. Because of Xomba's high page rank, your blurbs may well appear high on Google results.

But here's a hint: when people are doing a Web search to find info on a topic quickly, they might well decide that a search result that is badly worded, has misspellings, or is inaccurate may not be a good source of information. So they may well decide to skip your blurbs and click on someone else's.

is a bully. I agree with him that the text is a bit misleading to an outside visitor that is not familiar with Xomba. No big deal though , but there are no hints that this text simply points to another website. I always put something like "in this article" or "this website will show/tell you" so the reader will know.

I misunderstood Idlewild and his intentions. But once before he had accused me of copying when I had not. So it rankled when he was criticising me again. What I mean to say is if it had been anyone but Idlewild I would most probably have changed the way I wrote it. The defensive part was in reaction to past history.

I wasn't accusing you of copying, but of representing the site's contents as fact when they are not. I thought this might be a violation of the rules, so that's why I wrote what I wrote.

But the bottom line is the Xomba admin doesn't have a problem with the blurb as is, and that's the only opinion that counts. In any case, I'm sorry this got out of hand... I'd be willing to delete the content of my comments if you'd like (we can't totally delete our own comments).

I guess we should let bygones be bygones and start fresh. Misunderstandings can easily occur online as all you have to base anything on are words - which can be interpreted in a hundred different ways and miscontrued too easily.

Sounds good to me.