|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 10, 2005 23:59:05 GMT -4
I agree that many sites are selling books & videos. I don't consider that in itself as proof of being a poor source for information. Many mainstream sites also do the same. It is entirely their right to do so, in a free society. This probably quite true, I mean even BA has a book, i know this because I have a copy. However, one can usually separate those with a finacial bend from those that have one to educate by the response to questions. If their response is "Buy our book/video" then it's probably money.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Aug 11, 2005 1:06:57 GMT -4
I agree that many sites are selling books & videos. I don't consider that in itself as proof of being a poor source for information. Many mainstream sites also do the same. It is entirely their right to do so, in a free society. This probably quite true, I mean even BA has a book, i know this because I have a copy. However, one can usually separate those with a finacial bend from those that have one to educate by the response to questions. If their response is "Buy our book/video" then it's probably money. That's what bothers me about Alex Jones and his websites - his whole site and reports are 70% "Buy My Videos!". It's a hard sell and it makes me wary when anybody devotes so much time flogging their products.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Aug 11, 2005 1:25:02 GMT -4
Alex Jones give you your money's worth, though, and if you buy a CD from him, he lets you copy and distribute it to all your friends. The daily radio broadcast is free and so are the news stories. It's enough. For me.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Aug 11, 2005 9:42:16 GMT -4
I was warning him away from putting much stock in your posts because of the of the frequent low quality of your sources (such as agendized conspiracy web sites) and the tendency to preferentially interpret others to match your point of view (such as the above). Though perhaps a fuller explanation and a few examples would have been in order.Standard whitewashing of every source I link as being non-credible with no examples to support your view. That is, except claiming I distort quotes from "legit" sources, while I did no such thing, I just showed the actual quote as is. Have you considered the possibility that a "conspiracy site" has an "agenda" that would actually be to expose a conspiracy? It's a method of discredting an entire source by simply saying "Oh, they obviously have an agenda - they hate the Government because they are accusing them of being involved in 9/11". Well, no kidding! Actually, I was thinking about some of your sources for your tirade against the Federal Reserve and banking in general. It's not that those sources disagree with the government that bothers me, it is that they hate Jews. Whether you choose to recognize it or not, others have ably discredited these sources. I refer readers to that thread, if they can stomach it. The fact that you say that you are not driven by ethnic considerations while ignoring this “problem” and cite racist as sources is troubling. It invites further concerns that you may well be ignoring important details in your other sources that make them problematic. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position.
|
|