When looking for information that is off limits to mainstream media, you need to get information where you can.
Why is this "information" you're referring to "off limits" to "mainstream media"?
I don't know what Occam's [R]azor is, so you can explain it if you want.
It's essentially an ordering principle for constructing logical arguments; essentially, an effective process of working through an investigation of any sort is to start with the simplest explanation and develop increasingly complex hypotheses with which to explain it.
As opposed to, say, creating a far fetched, reaching explanation up front or - worse yet, from this perspective - fitting the evidence to an a priori, inviolate conclusion.
You seem to have the attitude that to discuss a topic like this you need to have iron clad proof.
I'm conjecturing only on the nature of the "evidence:" which is to say, its fundamental nonexistence; I have no objection to, and in fact encourage, discussing this type of thing.
If my questioning the laughable sources of information prevalent thusfar bothers you, well, that's how it goes.
I disagree.
Clearly; unsurprisingly.
I question your motive in playing the role of the "credibily police".
Another conspiracy, perhaps?
I'm no "police[man,]" nor do I seek to act as one; to that end, you certainly have the right to put me on ignore or simply not reply to my posts.
Why the heck would you ask someone on line you don't even know if they find a particular source "credible?". Because you are interested? No.
Answering for me? Bold.
Why wouldn't I ask if a poster, leaning on a single website of unfamiliar origin and itself containing no citations, finds a site credible?
You find it offensive to have your sphere of belief stirred, I take it?
Because you want to make a big frikin' [sic] deal of the point that you don't think the source is credible.
What's wrong with that? Is that any more objectionable than making a point - let alone starting a thread - buttressed by sources that one believes to be credible?
To me it is patronising.
Cry me a river, pal.
Now: what other evidence do you have?
LPS5 |
