Bob, for the most part I agree, but a lot of information is on the Internet, and cut & paste is a way to use disseminate that information. The trick is how we process the information. A teacher once taught my wife and I that perspective is everything. His example was a boy and girl on a date. She says; Please! Don't! Stop! He hears; Please don't stop! To some degree, we all hear what we want. My opinion is that an expert is someone who is right more than wrong concerning a subject.
A large part of the net is made up of faulty information. And lots of users simply think it is true, whatever it is. Thousands of web sites are agenda driven and they are not interested in facts. Others that not interested in facts find these sites and they endlessly quote, hoping to sound smart or justify their faulty reasoning and lack of initiative to learn the truth.
Or they simply believe that Site A is accurate because real reporters are writing the stuff. And we all know that these days, they can often be proven wrong with simple research, or they tell the "truth" but out of context to further a lie or faulty idea.
So people copy and paste and think they are serving the forum when they are simply creating a problem for those that really want the truth. Some readers think the poster is correct, and it repeats endlessly.
I will go out in a limb and suggest that more than 53.856% of the web is filled with opinion and not too many facts. And much of that 53.856% is simply reposted junk and not too much original thinking. Or ideas that are unrealistic or lies or BS; their words are then copied and pasted and the cycle continues.
Someone reads something I might post somewhere and they think it is utter BS because it does not mesh with what they believe (that is also wrong) and what a hundred other web sites say, which are also inaccurate or BS.
I recall posting about a specific model of Motorcycle. I knew that the OP was wrong. To prove that I was actually the wrong one, the OP went to the manufacturer's web site and posted the specific info that supported his wrong idea.
The problem was, the manufacturer's web site was also wrong; the web copy was penned by someone that knew nothing about the history of the bike he was writing about on behalf of the manufacturer, of which I know like the back on my hand. I can likely name original part number for any component making up that specific model.
So Bob disagrees with the OP and the manufacturer's site says something different than I say, so who is the reader going to believe, Bob or a foolish unprepared, novice writer who can post the web site and "prove" Bob is full of crap?
Bob