Originally posted by andy1033
Its just that we all want someone with answers and jones is not that person, lol. Why do people even bother with his bull, and some of his guests that
are never right.
He has a man on all the time, and they must just be there to sell gold, because what he says never comes true, and he must be still selling the gold
Didn't gold just close over $1000 an ounce today, highest for some years?
I think also all you people who talk about AJ's "credibility" are personalizing/doing-ad-hominem way too much.
Alex does not say "My Lord God told me
or "Trust me
saw an alien last night"...
(maybe a little bit he might lapse in his commentary foam)...But his basic thrust is much more like "Look at this article over here...I know you guys
won't believe what I say, so check the reference."
And when I've checked, the references are pretty much as he has characterized them.
So how does "credibility" enter into that?
He's just like a truffle-hunting dog, finding sources...And if all the truffles are kind of mushy this year, well it ain't your dog's fault..."I
don't write the news, I just report it"/"Don't-shoot-the-messenger" type of thing...
I find it weird/inexplicable the way people want to make it be about Alex personally, it's as if they felt that his work reflected badly on them
personally and they want to get him back on the same irrelevant nuisance nightmare level...
There's nothing special about Alex, he is just a dude, doing an obvious job, that is laying around just waiting for somebody to do it...and he is not
particularly magical at it, I bet numerous others could do a better job at it (hell, I think I could do it better, as it happens)...But, funny thing,
he is the one who is actually doing it, more points for him.
I wonder whether the people who have a problem with him, would have a problem with anybody else, who factually brought the same
articles/references/citations to light...If not, then why is it you can't see past his stylistics + mannerisms, like I do?
And if so, then your problem isn't with Alex, it's with reality itself, or at least that pie-slice of the real-world information stream that he is
data-mining his llama-nuggets from...and if you have a problem with reality, why pretend that anything that Alex is or does is the problem (well I
guess that answers itself, if you pretend Alex is the problem you can still avoid looking at the bad reality he upsets you with)...But it's as if you
can't tell the difference between him either making an unpleasant fact exist and/or making-up an unpleasant fact (neither one of which he really
does) versus making you aware of an unpleasant fact (=what he actually does).
Now Alex does pointedly select the data-chunks that he does cite (nothing wrong with that, it's called having a point of view, and besides you can't
simultaneously cite all references immediately and equally, unless you're God or something)...and but so if you don't like the picture his
data-chunk selection seems to paint, cite a different slew of factual checkable references that rebut him...that is how knowledge advances, yes...but
I don't see how credibility or personality or appearances enter into any of this at all...So long as Alex always keeps on saying "Don't believe me,
check this reference" (and the references always check out)...and, seriously, is that not what he always does do?
Anyway that's what I have