chefmike

[Oli]

Some blogs and alternative news sites just post articles that are sourced from those aforementioned sites. Anyway, its not so much the actual "site" that matters, as it is the content and its sourced derivatives.

Sites that don't have to fact check the information they post, sites that don't have an editorial board to question the integrity/validity of the information they're posting or the logic of the conclusions drawn from said information.

Not reliable...more editorial than information. But you apparently can not discern the difference.

[daveskarety]

Sites that don't have to fact check the information they post, sites that don't have an editorial board to question the integrity/validity of the information they're posting or the logic of the conclusions drawn from said information.

Not reliable...more editorial than information.

Who are you on about here mate? cnn.com or fox.com?

Anyway, I still can't believe you guys are all wasting your time on people who have absolutely no intention of even investigating things for themselves or engaging you in debate. Seriously, these are the same types of people, ie the ignorant majority, that lived under Hitler in the 30's and 40's, and who believed their Government and the media when they told them that a terrorist was resposible for the Reichstag Fire and that the camps weren't being built. And these guys will one day realise how blind they have been and wish they had done something sooner. These days we all know what really happened, everybody knows that the German Govt were behind the Reichstag Fire. In fact there are many parallels between the situation then and now. The Reichstag Fire was a false flag attack by the German Govt (9/11) carried out in order to invade Czechoslovakia (Afghanistan), it led directly to the formation of Germany's Dept of Homeland Security, the setting up of Dachau (Guantanamo Bay) and the 'Enabling Act' (Patriot Act). Talk about them repeating a winning formula! There was even a truth movement in Germany back then, they were called the 'White Rose Movement';

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

The White Rose Movement tried to educate ordinary people, using leaflets, about the truth regarding the Reichstag Fire, the Government spying on everyone, the unlawful arrests and exectutions and also that huge holding camps were being built to house masses of people, sound familiar? However, then as now, these people were dismissed as idiots by the ignorant masses and, without the General Public caring, the leaders were eventually exectuted. May I repeat the following quote;

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer
German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

Please consider this the next time you are angry or annoyed because of ignorant people who constantly refer to tinfoil, and who do not wish to ask questions and who blindly folllow what the media and their Govt tells them is the truth. Remember the truth is still in stage 2, and the likes of chefmike, Oli and the rest are the violent opposers. So I say again do not waste your time on immovable minds and, whenever you feel frustrated, consider the stages of truth and the lessons of history and use your energies in the more positive pursuit of informing people who think with an open mind. Start a local We Are Change Chapter, print up a 1000 leaflets, burn some DVD's and go to the next ball game and hand them out!! May I also remind you that the survivors of the White Rose movement are today honoured by Germany whereas the complicit, ignorant, populace hang their heads in shame!

[trish]

Quite clearly Schopenhauer was prone to hyperbole. Certainly not ALL truth starts out being ridiculed. So if a philosopher is willing to overstate his case in the interest of dramatic effect, why should we take anything he says as true? This is a problem for any source of information whose main priority is sensationalism rather than professionalism, speculation rather than fact checking. The White Rose pamphlets were not sensationalist tabloids pronouncing every sort of conspiracy theory someone sent them. But existentialistcowboy, infowars, roguegovernment etc. are just that: they are the internet version of supermarket tabloids propagating any sort of sensationalism from the moon landing was faked to the fall of the twin towers was a Bush conspiracy. Beware: not every claim that is widely ridiculed is true __ indeed the odds are against it.

[daveskarety]

Quite clearly Schopenhauer was prone to hyperbole. Certainly not ALL truth starts out being ridiculed. So if a philosopher is willing to overstate his case in the interest of dramatic effect, why should we take anything he says as true.

Schopenhauer is, of course, referring to instances where truth is concealed, I didn't point that out as I thought that it would be obvious by the very nature of the discussion we are having. The rest of what you are saying re philosophy can be levelled at ANY Philosophy or any opinion at all, that decision is up to the individual. Anyway...

The White Rose pamphlets were not sensationalist tabloids pronouncing every sort of conspiracy theory someone sent them.

Easy to say that now mate, but I guarantee that is exactly how their pamphlets were regarded by the ignorant general public at the time. If people had read them instead of dismissing the people who distributed them as idiots then maybe they would have overthrown Hitler and saved countless lives, including their own!!

But existentialistcowboy, infowars, roguegovernment etc. are just that: they are the internet version of supermarket tabloids propagating any sort of sensationalism from the moon landing was faked to the fall of the twin towers was a Bush conspiracy.

I can see you have a low opinion of these sites, I only have experience of one of them - Infowars. And I think, as Greg Pallast does, that Infowars links to a lot of good, solid investigative journalism and official Govt documents to back up the points that are being made. I don't regard being directed toward the truth an act of sensationalist journalism. Moreover I also noticed that, by association, you bracketed people who say the Moon Landings were faked together with anyone questioning the official story of 9/11. I feel that says more about your prejudice, conditioning and understanding then anything I can say could, as does your belief that we all think Bush was behind it!

The idea that it was a Bush Conspiracy is a macguffin. Bush controlled nothing, no President does and the Left/Right Paradigm exists merely to divide us all. They are all controlled by the same people. Once you get your head around that then the rest becomes easier to understand! As I say I have seen enough evidence to make me question the Official Account of 9/11. The very fact that 2 of the author's of the '911 Commission Report' wrote a book stating they were lied to, that timelines didn't add up, they were fed disinfo and blocked every step of the way throughout their investigation makes me, like them, unwilling to accept it's findings. The conclusion they reach is the same as my own, that we need a fresh investigation into the events of 911. Only then can we finally find out the truth and then, maybe, when what you now regard as 'sensationalist tabloid conspiracy theory' is being told to you by Wolf Blitzer or Bill O'Reilly, even you will believe it!

[trish]

Did I bracket people? I wasn't aware. The only person of whom I spoke was Schopenhauer, and I did him the courtesy of taking him at his word and not second guessing what it was he might have intended to say. I did speak of certain websites and I did bracket those. I did not do you the discourtesy of second guessing what it is you believe or do not believe. Did I say you think Bush brought down the Twin Towers? Do you read everything with as much care? Are you as good at finding truth directed links as you are making inferences? If so, why should we find your remarks credible?

[hippifried]

Professional punditry is too often a way to get paid without having to do or know anything. I tend to look at professional philosophers the same way. It's hard to take pomposity seriously.

Don't get me wrong. There's some people who really know their stuff, but it's not hard to tell the difference. It's all in the attitude. The more someone knows, the less temptation there is to attack anyone who disagrees. Perhaps it's because the more one knows, the more they want to know.

----------------------------------------------------------

Hey Chef Mike,

Finally made the big time with a dedicated thread that you didn't even have to start yourself? Wow! Don't let it go to your head. Consider the source.

Don't let the bouillabaisse boil over.

[daveskarety]

Did I bracket people? I wasn't aware.

Well to be honest I didn't really have the time to over-analyse what you wrote, but I feel that the implication in what you wrote is obvious. We, of course, disagree!

The only person of whom I spoke was Schopenhauer, and I did him the courtesy of taking him at his word and not second guessing what it was he might have intended to say.

If you recall I did make the point that Philosophy is very much down to individual interpretation. You obviously regard my interpretation as 'second-guessing'. However you could make that comment regarding anyone's interpretation of Philosophy, as we are in the arena of the subjective, all opinions are valid. Yours AND mine!

Do you read everything with as much care? Are you as good at finding truth directed links as you are making inferences? If so, why should we find your remarks credible?

As I said, not really, not on a thread as ill-informed, informal and lacking in debate as this one. However returning to your allegation regarding my credibility. You hit the nail right on the head, why should you regard me as credible? I don't think you should blindly regard anyone's opinion as 'credible', not without them engaging you in debate, something impossible to do round here it seems! We should all question EVERYTHING that we are told, not just agree or dismiss out of hand! That is the way to engender some decent debate in order to make us all examine what we preceive to be 'the truth'. To take the issue of 911 as an example. It is amazing how I have yet to meet ANYONE able to properly lay out, even less defend, with all it's inconsistencies, the official story of 911. As I said earlier that even goes for members of the Commission.

They start off confidently enough, but once they begin to realise that all the 'facts' they think they know contradict the evidence and the eye-witness testimony their confidence begins to wane and they realise that there is something 'fishy' about what they have been told to think. They also realise, once they do some further reading and research that what they think they know also contradicts the sworn testimony given to the 911 Commission, Norman Mineta's timeline of the Pentagon attack? Building 7 not even being mentioned? etc Once they realise that they have simply swallowed the disinfo fed to them by the Mainline Media they start to ask their own questions. This was my experience too, so I know that it happens.

We are all aware just how much has been shaped by 911, so if it seems we have not been given the truth in any way, as even 2 of the Report's authors do, don't you think this event needs to be re-examined? As we slide further and further into this depression, from the people who brought you 9/11, more and more people are connecting the dots, and one day it will all make perfect sense to everyone! I think once the economy collapses it is going to make a lot of people question things a LOT more!

As I say there really aren't enough hours in the day for this, I don't really have time to analyse every single point made in this fruitless exchange. However, so we can all see who has the most reliable information how about we all agree to make some predictions, based upon our perception of the truth, and then we can all speak in 6 months? It might be a start in ascertaining who is 'credible' and who is not!

[trish]

No, we more than disagree. You are wrong. The "implication" to which you jumped was about my belief. You are simply wrong to assert that I believed that you subscribe to the conspiracy that Bush was behind the Twin Tower Tragedy.


Yes, I do recall what you said about philosophy, but you are wrong again. Many of my colleagues are philosophers and they are very much interested in saying exactly what they mean, and they usually mean what they say(for hippiefried let me add they are hardly ever accurate, just precise). If Schopenhauer is an exception, and is known rather for his imprecision, why on Earth would you quote him in a post in which you are attempting to establish the credibility of the websites you habituate?

Once again you demonstrate an inability to read and comprehend. Did I make allegations about your credibility? I believe I merely raised some questions. But keep talking, you are well on your way to answering them.

[daveskarety]

No, we more than disagree. You are wrong. The "implication" to which you jumped was about my belief. You are simply wrong to assert that I believed that you subscribe to the conspiracy that Bush was behind the Twin Tower Tragedy.


Yes, I do recall what you said about philosophy, but you are wrong again. Many of my colleagues are philosophers and they are very much interested in saying exactly what they mean, and they usually mean what they say(for hippiefried let me add they are hardly ever accurate, just precise). If Schopenhauer is an exception, and is known rather for his imprecision, why on Earth would you quote him in a post in which you are attempting to establish the credibility of the websites you habituate?

Once again you demonstrate an inability to read and comprehend. Did I make allegations about your credibility? I believe I merely raised some questions. But keep talking, you are well on your way to answering them.

YAWN!!

[chefmike]

Hey Chef Mike,

Finally made the big time with a dedicated thread that you didn't even have to start yourself? Wow! Don't let it go to your head. Consider the source.

Don't let the bouillabaisse boil over.

LMAO hippifried...not so fast...if you cast your eyes to the bottom of the page you'll see that this isn't the first time that I've been the target of lame attacks and smears here at HA..although admittedly I'm accustomed to casting my pearls of wisdom before a better caliber of swine than the handful of tinfoil touting tranny chasers that predictably scurried from this thread like roaches when a light was cast upon their lies...

And BTW hippi...I don't boil, I simmer...