I have been posting on facebook about the incessant clamour surrounding the vacuous appeal of the "royal" baby and the indication of hegemonic success that the poor taxpayers who are "excited" at the news demonstrate. Following a polemic on royal parasitism I made a supplementary post backgrounding the squandering of Europe's wealth through the "sale of indulgences" by the Vatican.

This discussion prompted a comment containing a link to the following page (see below) and, although this does not pertain to my selected research question, I thought it would make an ideal example of unverifiable credibility which does pertain nicely to the Week 11 discussion question:

1. How do the criteria for critical evaluation apply to your specific area of research interest?
   
   Here is the link: http://servantofthelight.com/content/view/71/101/

Here was my reply to that doubtless fascinating read:

"I wonder how much of this is actually true and not invention or embellishment. It's a shame it is not written in a scholarly manner with references. As such it is unquotable and, without references it presents far too great a burden for me to investigate given my current workload.
The very omission of references indicates that it is simply made up or created from cherry-picked facts, presented disingenuously in order to present the, possibly biased, views of the author. The provision of references would demonstrate that the author had taken the trouble to research this topic thoroughly himself rather than repeating ad-hoc what he'd heard from others, and that he was willing to have his synthesis of his sources, and his conclusions, scrutinised.

I'm afraid this site gets a thumbs down from me as it is. Interesting food for thought but not quotable in the least."