posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:53 AM
Originally posted by rogue1
Quite simple, I believe in reality.
Well i have shared some of it with you over the last year and it's clearly you believe what you like whatever the reality turns out to be.
I don't believe everything I read, such as yourself who reads fringe books and websites.
No one believes everything they read... Calling what you disagree with the ' the fringe' is a very popular tactic when you do not actually a
meaningful reason for disagreeing and it is getting progressively more popular in western media where no time for discussion is allowed. I tend to
source my final arguments almost exclusively from official news channels around the world and it really matters not how i came up with my theory if i
can support it from the NYT, Washington post or other 'supposedly' reliable western sources. You really can not have it both ways even if that is
what your type of hypocrisy normally demands of reality.
Let me know when you actually travel out of good ole South Africa, tell me when you have some world experience, because we both know right now
you have none.
More experience in close mindedness i do not need as i have already been blessed enough to run into the likes of you.
So I believe what I have seen and expereienced, you believe in fantasy, you are an easy person to convince.
You have never convinced me of anything but i guess the case can be made that your just incredibly bad at sharing ideas and that i am in fact easily
convinced by 'others' who employ more logic and general reasoning towards changing my mind. I obviously don't agree with your assertion but it's a
interesting premise considering your dismal failure in managing anything close so far.
Quite franly I hvae proven your statements wrong too mnay times to hold too much stock in what you say anymore, haven't I
Even a broken clock is right twice a day and as percentage i would say your about as successful when trying to prove anything.
And here we have your strategy. Some author doesn't agree with whta you say, you get on google until you find someone who does - typical
Well for that to be the case i would have to have a motive/reason/incentive for believing a certain thing and until you can establish that in each
case your claims of bias are more than meaningless.
I find it funny especially when you have quoted articles in the past, which actually prove your statements wrong, then you find something else
which agrees with you - unfortunately not factual though.]
I article may agree with certain things i believe but disagree with other and that is why i will quote a certain part and then later ( if requested)
show with other information why i believe certain claims from a given source are correct while others are not. John pike for instance runs
'globalsecurity' which is not a horrible site as long as you do not trust Pike on anything related to Russian ABM and ICBM technology. The reason
for that is that he campaigned to keep the ABM treaty ( keeping America disarmed while Russia has thousands of ABM missiles) when the old USSR with
which the treaty was signed supposedly no longer existed. You can clearly not trust the man on American strategic security issues( his strangely based
in Virginia and the CIA has been lying about Russian ABM's since day one) as his clearly biased in favour of disarming America at all cost. Other
than that i have so far no issue with his information and wont have until i have reason.
That's how i work and since i apparently arrive at results few have success contesting i do not yet see reason to alter it. What you call
'investigation' is imo a joke as it does nothing but perpetually reinforce your views. Any method that is based on self serving ego protectionist
ends is completely useless( edit)
when working towards discovering objective reality.
[edit on 5-8-2006 by StellarX]