Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: grusum who wrote (28924)	3/1/2003 7:30:26 PM
From: big guy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

"The one thing that’s missing from all of your “sources” is a credible source… you know, something like Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX." You've got to be kidding right?

To: grusum who wrote (28924)	3/1/2003 7:56:59 PM
From: habitrail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

<<The one thing that’s missing from all of your “sources” is a credible source… you know, something like Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX.>> You know, the "credible news sources" you mention told people to go Clown long on Internet stox through the 90's, are still telling people to hold now. They never broke any news on ENRN until the lock was in and J6P was left holding the bag. <<It would have been a news coup for the first one to break the story>> Why?? What News Coup??? Broadcasters have effective monopoly on nations eyeballs, ears. If a small fry breaks news, the big media just shout it louder and farther. They are the ones that make the real money, whatever they say. They don't give credit unless they are looking to pin the blame on someone in case the story is a risk. Mainstream media will not take risks on stories, true or not. <<they would have lost all credibility>> By credibility you mean popularity. Those news sources you list are not in the news biz they are in the entertainment biz. Do not expect them to say anything that people don't want to hear. Also, they are a business, they do not do it for free, they have conflicts of interest, don't expect them to say the truth if that is going to lose them money. They al say the same thing, they all have their segments line up, even their commercials are lined up. The mainstream media has no credibility because they have a proven record of zero integrity. The same cannot be said of alternate news sources as they have either not proven anything one way or another, or have already proven their integrity.

To: grusum who wrote (28924)	3/1/2003 11:22:20 PM
From: terry richardson	Respond to of 36161

gru: Sorry... had to go out for a while but others seem to have answered your point on Reuters, Associated Press, NBC, ABC, CBS or FOX as well if not better than I could. On sources... the oil fires is for the moment hanging out there, I agree, but it's a new story and we'll see if anyone picks it up. There's another link thepowerhour.com which "habitrail" referenced 28920. Even if proved the next question/spin would be how many and you couldn't prove that Saddam didn't do any at all. In fact from a strategic tactical point of view since he was being attacked it wasn't a bad move since the aircraft (some) couldn't fly or see due to the smoke. You or I might have done the same thing in the same situation. As I say its out there... we'll see. Its rather like the Petro-Euro/Dollar essay which is just someone's essay but it makes too much sense to dismiss outright. And although that story hasn't been picked up by the majors the basics of the reasoning are gradually coming out in various articles. Personally I doubt that the US fired all the wells but perhaps did some for their own tactical reasons. (like Cheyneys old friends got a big contract to replace some. Sorry guys I couldn't help that one. I'll try harder honest.) The sources cited were: Foreignpolicy.com - their corporate partners are listed as AIG, BG, BP Emerging Markets Management, LLC, SIG, Thomson Prometric. They also put out a magazine which lists the folowing info: "FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C. The sundayherald.com - A well regarded Scotish Newspaper gulfwarvets.com Web site for the American Gulf War Veterans Association. I don't know if you can trust what they say as the truth but I'll let you argue with 'em. fas.org - Federation of American Scientists polyconomics.com - Chairman Jude Wanniski, a guy with a reputation for the truth to protect. I've been reading their stuff for a while and always found it to be interesting and credible. thepowerhour.com - I don't know too much about but I thought I'd heard of their radio show. The oil fires purported to be an interview and was also reported on by Jon Rappoport stratiawire.com you can also check his bio there. I've heard the name before but I'm not too familiar with his work. I chose the ThePowerHour.com reference because it was one that I had saved and it referred to the Gulf War Vets Association as having received numerous reports. Tribnet.com - seem to be the web site of the News Tribune in Tacoma Washington. Not sure what their paper is like but it would seem that they have a reputation to uphold in that part of the woods at least. whatrealyhappened.com - best site on the net for up to date and breaking news that ABC, NBC, CBS won't report. A Philip Zack + Anthrax google search gets 1,940 hits, take your pick. counterpunch.com A muckraking newsletter by their own admission but I thought the story of how Japan was maneuvered into attacking Pearl Harbor was so well known it didn't occur to me that anyone would challenge it. jfkmontreal.com Don't know who's behind that site but I had read Freedman's speech elsewhere and the facts leading up to the Balfour Declaration and the Declaration itself are pretty well known. I would recommend a book to you "Bitter Harvest - a modern history of Palestine" by Sami Hadawi. The Zionist who actually got the ball rolling was one James Malcolm, described as an Oxford educated Armenian, who initially approached Sir Mark Sykes of the Foreign Office. For a more complete history of what happened behind the "Balfour Document" read the book or check here: users.cyberone.com.au or the local library. users.cyberone.com.au has a lot about WW I & II might have a bias though. I haven't read it fully just came across it. ety.com - was only for the image of the Daily Express headline. Seems too easy to check to be a forgery. The story is well known in Europe. time.com - yes I know what you mean here. Since they were taken over by AOL in such a steal I don't trust 'em either. I think on the whole the referenced material stands up as credible both historically and through further research should you care to do any. Regards T.