A Message for a Commenter
A comment was left a few posts ago that I thought was worth pulling out to the front page:
If Pat and James quote something from 911bloglines--a Rick Seigel disinfo factory--all these alledged "debunkers" don't think to question it just because it's Pat and James--if a debunker says it, it must be reliable, reguardless of the source.
You really don't get blogging, do you? The point of including links to your source is so that you both present your opinion and the source of the facts/somebody else's opinion that you based it on so that people can check your work and decide for themselves whether they agree with you.
But if I quoted something from Nico's news aggregator, debunks would act as if I got it from the "Weekly World News", next to Elvis' alien love child.
You don't understand what a news aggregator is. The news aggregator is NOT the souce. It's a site that collects information from other sources and presents them in a very quick fashion so that readers and bloggers can decide what to read/blog about next. Here's the page I go to of Nico's.
It has feeds from SLC, from various sources for tags for Google News 9/11, 9-11 Blogger, 9-11 Conspiracy Smasher, DU breaking news... you name it. Convenient. Links to the original source. I can't imagine why anybody would try to recreate it (although he should add a function for JREF Conspiracy Theory topics).
For all you debunks who still don't get Jenny's "obsession", it is really that bad--Pat and James taking ANYTHING from Nico's news aggregator is the online equivalent of taking "news" from a supermarket tabloid. Even if it's true, the published source calls into question their credability.
What Nico's site says is "there's something over here you might like to read". I judge the source itself.
As for Nico himself, I judge him by his actions and not his reputation. He claimed that Les Jamieson was a URANTIA member and I rolled my eyes. Then he posted a couple links and I could see it was legitimate. And then he proved that one of the founding members of 911Truth.org was also a URANTIA member and I was flabbergasted. And so we were ahead of the curve in realizing that Les was going to get bounced in favor of Luke and Tom. Hope they can handle the LaRouchies!
So Nico has credibility with me when he's discussing fellow 9-11 Deniers. He's been around since the beginning so he would know these folks well, whereas I'm trying to catch up.
I don't agree with the no-planes stuff. I don't agree with any of you folks on 9-11. You may think that you represent the "responsible" wing of the Truth Movement, but you're almost all kooks to me, and the idea that "no-planers at the Pentagon" are somehow more reasonable than "no planers at the WTC" is just risible.
Oh, and by the way, that's what Do-Over Boy claims over at the Loose Change Forum as he prepares to jettison Killtown:
Loose Change Forum is from now on taking a NO TOLERANCE POLICY on "No Planes At WTC"
From this post forward, anyone seen promoting that theory ... first offense, 7 day suspension. Second offense, banning.
This is our forum, and we refuse to allow our reputation to be tarnished any further.
Here's a question for Dylan: How about banning people who post about the Cleveland Airport Mystery? Or about the cellphone calls?
Labels: 9-11 Bloglines, Dylan Avery, Nico Haupt
posted by Pat @ 10:39 PM
15 comments
15 Comments:
"Reputation"?
I wonder how much longer the Loose Change Forum will be any kind of "discussion" forum? The way it's going, it'll be the LTW crew and the remaining four people in the universe who agree 100% with every single piece of their theories without reservation, as anyone with a differing opinion will have been banned ages ago.
Why is he taking away their freedom of speech? THEY'RE ONLY ASKING QUESTIONS!
In a way though, he may be doing the only thing that will give their position any credibility...marginalization of the kooks.
I have often said that the only thing that will ever give the truth movement a glimmer of hope in terms of catching on in the mainstream is to create a uniform, consistent position on 9/11, and marginalize the outrageous aspects of the movement.
TAM:)
"I have often said that the only thing that will ever give the truth movement a glimmer of hope in terms of catching on in the mainstream is to create a uniform, consistent position on 9/11, and marginalize the outrageous aspects of the movement."
But that is not an option with some in the "new age loony" types. There is a concept with a lot of these people that all opinions are valid and some even believe all are equal.
Deepak Chopra believes anything is possible if you believe hard enough and so truth is not real. His current bit of bull is that food can not make you fat if you mentally don't let it.
With many truthers it would not be "COOL" to call someone wrong.
'But that is not an option with some in the "new age loony" types'.
911_truthiness, you're absolutely right. This is without doubt the 'best' example of 9/11 looniness I have yet come across:
Click here for event flyer
According to their 'press release', topics covered included:
Sumerian Creation Mythology
Ancient Wisdom
The Knights Templar
Rosicrucianism
...all no doubt of great relevance to 9/11.
Another blog dedicated to Jenny! And you debunks wonder why my ego is so big...;-)
As for Nico himself, I judge him by his actions and not his reputation.
Um, a large part of a person's reputaion is the result of their actions.
So Nico has credibility with me
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Sorry, love, you and James should have just blown Jenny off---this sounds not just strange, but lame.
How do you know Nico doesn't tamper with the news he gets? Do you really trust him that much? You haven't said whether you double check what you read there...so you must. Strange behavior for a debunk, chum....
"Nico has credability with me."
Can I quote you on that, Pat?
LOL!
And, just remember, my little debunks, like Pat says: SPAM is a privilage.
;-P
Try to at least spell it correctly, Jenny. And it might help if you used the entire sentence, "So Nico has credibility with me when he's discussing fellow 9-11 Deniers."
And it might help if you used the entire sentence
Context? You want me to be fair and quote you in context?
LOL!
When I see you debunks make that a habit, I'll consider.
"Spam is a privilege, spam is a privilege!"
And yes, it's no secret my spelling's shite--but thanks for the tip anyway.
BTW: where is your mate Nico these days? Think he'd be taking to opportunity to spam the piss out of you just to show he could. Hmm...
"Spam is a privilege!"--you heard it from Pat first.
;-P
I am sorry, but this insult was screaming out at me...feel free to get me back..
Jenny...the size of your ego is only matched by the size of your mouth.
TAM:):):)
Thank you, Pat, for your point about no planes at the Pentagon and at the WTC being equally "kooky." We agree, except that I put kooky in quotes because I am kooky.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/04/face-it-were-all-kooks-part-2.html
How do you know Nico doesn't tamper with the news he gets? Do you really trust him that much?
Yeah! I'll bet he hacks in to sites and edits their content before he links to them!
How do you know Nico doesn't tamper with the news he gets? Do you really trust him that much?
Yeah! I'll bet he hacks in to sites and edits their content before he links to them!
Now is our Pat going to claim he has NEVER gotten news from one of Nico's blogs? Because I don't think that's the case...
And other questions rise: why not just set up your own news aggregator, set to your own preferences? One can, as Wiki explains:
aggregator
Course that would make it hard to stay on message...
Let's do a hypothetical example:
Screw Loose had it's own aggregator--would I regularly check it for blogable content? Fuck, no! Perhaps for occasional entertainment, but, even if I found something interesting and reliable(ha,ha) I'd find the source and add it to MY list of sources--and perhaps set up my own aggregator.
Nico's aggregator collects news Rick Seigel wants highlighted and used. Using it as often as Pat does, just makes Screw Loose an extention of the Rick Seigel propaganda network.
So Nico has credibility with me when he's discussing fellow 9-11 Deniers. He's been around since the beginning so he would know these folks well, whereas I'm trying to catch up.
Well, love, you'll do better with that if you DON'T rely on a bloke who gets along with NO ONE. You are extremely naive if you think talking to a man most debunks and truthers can agree is wacko jacko is going to help you understand 911activism. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree about 911, chum--Nico Haupt is unstable--and therefore is opinion is unreliable.
For you to say he's reasonable, defies all logic--unless he's part of your little program.
If there's any individual a debunk and a truthers can agree about it would be Nico--that you insist he has any credability about ANYTHING(unstable people are not good sources of info on their relathionships with other people) is BIZZARE.
Hey, if you get your own news aggregator, BONUS: you can feel free to delete Nico's spam--oh wait, forgot--SPAM is privilege here!
Hmm...maybe I should use that privilege...
I am sorry, but this insult was screaming out at me...feel free to get me back..
Jenny...the size of your ego is only matched by the size of your mouth.
TAM:):):)
Sorry, TAM--saw your insult, but was too wrapped up in stealing Gravy's Union Jack to insult you back.
So, here goes--um...
Oh, bugger it. I'll give you a pass this time--take a rain check, like.
;-)
I just wonder a few things about this site....is it just to debunk Loose Change? I'm new here, so I have some questions. Another is, do you take Nico Haupt's word as gospel? Nico has been there from the begining, and he's well funded. There has been 9/11 sites set up from the begining and it seems pretty obvious that some are totally made for disinfo and to give the impression of nutty. Very effective, they work, just look how people have responded. My point is, how much of the governments 9/11 Commission Final report do you believe?
Post a Comment
<< Home