allow me to illustrate it could have been einstein preaching. i still will not click i thought there was an implicit understanding of convention it appears however that it needs to be re-emphasized if it is the only citation for one's point or argument, provide transcript video has distasteful connotations one only weakens one's position if utilized this is the way it is and the way it should remain transgress at your own risk i propose the offender be availed of the opportunity to rectify (see skin and chris). objections and complaints met with a lock.
furthermore, convention does allow for this if the venue is appropriate figure that shit out for yourself
gus firstly: 1)merely calling the content of the link preaching is purely dismissive, and doesn't constitute a valid argument, or refutaion, or critical analysis of the content. it smacks of "talk to the hand coz the face aint listening" typical yank. 2) furthermore it (labelling it as preaching) is inaccurate, in his talk naik takes common misconceptions and accusations and offers clear, incisive authoritive answers, citing authentic sources and islamic jurisprudence. he is excersisng his fundemental right to counter that which is based in total lack of islamic knowldege, this does not constitute preaching. secondly how is the link above, different to: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13936.htm (from: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=58780) would chomskys lecture be any less valid had it been posted on youtube? would the inherent validity in naiks lecture be any different if i had downloaded it to my hard drive, and attached the file to my post instead of linking to youtube? or: what's the difference between: http://www.famousmuslims.com/Yusuf Estes.htm http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6K0627FiCk&feature=related the platform or medium through which information is conveyed is incidental to the the content of the information. to simply dismiss links to youtube is absurd, and has no validity.
