Discrediting Threads Based on a Name/Names.

Lets just start with the basics....

This is the INTERNET. There are way to many people out there with ludicrous ideas, outrageous claims, fear-mongering, cults, and those that choose to take advantage of others.

When a thread is posted, even here , there is a story, facts, fiction, sometimes wild absurdities, and even truths. Our jobs, if we choose to do it, it to explore on our own, based on the fact that we live in a messed up world, with liars, and cheats.

The odds of someone writing, and re-posting something on the internet is huge. We can easily see that when we post a quote from another... even each other.

Very rarely do we see something that is "untapped".

There are tons of people that others do not agree with, such as David Icke, Billy Meirer, Sorcha Faal, Alex Jones, etc,. I for one do NOT subscribe to some of the things that they do, but I do understand that with some lies there are truths.

I choose to take info and choose what I think is right. Many do not. They see a name of any of the hundreds out there that in one way or another are considered liars, con-men/women, fear-mongerers, false prophets, and more.

The odds of someone here finding a quote. or link to a story that has not been used, or told, or even doctored by one of the many out there is almost impossible with the right story.

That's where WE come in. That's where someone like ourselves can see past a story, and see that there in fact is something off about it, and continue to search. There is something about the term research that says something to many of us and thats why we are here.

I have seen many a story go unnoticed, derailed, unfounded, and the true story.. the real story ignored because one of the many names out there have some association.

This is the internet, that is going to happen, and if we ignore every story that comes along, no matter how fishy it gets, or how deep down we know that there is a real story there, we will lose sight of it, because of any of the considered "disinfo" agents.

Here is another example.
I dont like liver. I have not tried it with a different recipe, and I am not a fan of lets say.. Julia Childs (thats a lie by the way ), someone posts a recipe with liver by her. I immediately ignore the recipe, which I might like, or can see how it can work, and I am solely concentrating on the person that it referenced.

I dont like her, I dont care about the story, and I dont reference anything else.

Our sole purpose is to see what others wont, to be a part of the truth, and be able to openly discuss it here. I am tired of everyone adding no substance to a thread, or agreeing with out searching, because one member used a name that no one likes.

Its a childhood game, like giving or catching cooties.

Look into the story yourself. You dont like a UFO photo, you dont like a story, a link, a name, then bring something to the table besides.

*DisInfo* because so and so said that.

Or *CGI* because we all now a picture/video cant be that good.

As far as I'm concerned as long as we can quote without a fight, wikipedia, the bible, each other, new members in introductions, MSM (we all know people only fight when its FOX, everyone else is ok), then search for yourself.

Thanks for reading, rant over.
Peace, NRE.

Would you trust a scientific theory that you was knew was based on false information?

A persons history often refletcs what their future holds.

So yes I personally dismiss information from certain individuals or organizations that have proven to be less than reliable in the past.

If you can't find a good source of information then you might rethink writing a thread on that subject. You know what is said of people that build their houses on a foundation of sand....

and I am solely concentrating on the person that it referenced. I dont like her, I dont care about the story, and I dont reference anything else. Our sole purpose is to see what others wont, to be a part of the truth, and be able to openly discuss it here. I am tired of everyone adding no substance to a thread, or agreeing with out searching, because one member used a name that no one likes.

Basically why I became an athiest I'm a common sense man. The world is simple -- you can understand it with simple math all you need is common sense. I use common sense to dictate wether the thread I'm reading is biased, or not. If it is, it most likely is filled with biased info that I will gain nothing out of so I may move on if It isn't interesting enough.

It is isn't biased, I open a google page and start doing some rough research leading me to a bigger conspiracy which eventually leads to a bigger one and so forth until I reach this big con bubble and I sleep and forget everything. Either that or the thread I make (or has been made by someone else) gains no attention. So normally If I believe the thread is a just lacking substance itself, what more harm can I do by adding even more substance-less material.

Concl: It's a forum filled with humans. If we didn't have people that said things like "Man Alex Jones is a fraud don't believe him" just because Alex is biased when it comes to info filtering, then there wouldn't be any ignorance to deny, or any people to debate against. We are all biased and jump to conclusions too often, but that's what allow those other poster's to come along and make our posts look like trash so that we will learn something from that person.

I believe I read the thread that prompted this one. You do make a good point. Too many people don't take the time to do a little digging themselves. I've also noticed that many people don't even bother to read replies to a thread, that may give additional information. Maybe I just have too much time on my hands?

I sure don't believe everything written on here. But when I do find something that piques my interest, I will go looking for more information or other sources. Shouldn't we all learn as much as we can?
I don't know much about all of the supposed dis-info agents always mentioned in many threads, but when I do read something by one of them, Icke for example, I at least start looking to see if there is anything else out there about what was written, from some other source.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not make it fact.

reply to post by mileysubet

Would you trust a scientific theory that you was knew was based on false information?

A scientific theory cannot be based on false information....theory means something completely different in science than the everyday use of the word

Originally posted by chiefsmom
I've also noticed that many people don't even bother to read replies to a thread, that may give additional information.

Agree this is horrible, the worse is the ones that don't even read the OP though - they only read and respond to the thread title.

I happen to agree with this OP to an extent - no matter how many times the "boy cried wolf", its worth investigating IMHO - but I go to the pasture with the assumption that there is no wolf - I'll believe it when I see it when I get there.

Originally posted by mileysubet
Would you trust a scientific theory that you was knew was based on false information?

A persons history often refletcs what their future holds.

So yes I personally dismiss information from certain individuals or organizations that have proven to be less than reliable in the past.

If you can't find a good source of information then you might rethink writing a thread on that subject. You know what is said of people that build their houses on a foundation of sand....

Its kind of like the boy who cried wolf right?

Eventually you become numb with overexaggeration that you just laugh at most ideas. But, if one makes enough predictions or theories on a subject eventually they will hit it on the button.

I honestly think some of these people are sincere in their approach, but get labeled as dis-info agents because they have been wrong. I think what they tend to forget is that a single sparks are spectral fire.



Autonomous machete for hands
Warden and judge hide behind masks
Wet raindrop lull
Small rationing
Exhumed the rhetoric of
Break the weak in single file
Sanction this outbreak- a virus conspires
Push becomes shove, days become months
I seem to have forgotten the warmth of the sun

Feeding frenzy, it's contagious
Have trigger, will travel
Single sparks are spectral fires

Shackled the grapple and the sentinels found
Binoculars watch cardboard towns
Strung up in webs the net was flung
Over the auditorium
Slave trade the weak, no call to arms
Sanction this outbreak; a virus conspires
Push becomes shove, days become months
And i seem to have forgotten the warmth of the sun

A single spark can start a spectral fire
Have trigger, will travel
-------

And we tend to forget our own mistakes