Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiram
IMO as a scientist, I see nothing wrong with being discerning about what you present. I think the "risk" of losing a really good whistleblower is minimal...basically because the really good ones will have some substantiating info. They will. Plain and simple.
|
This pretty much sums up the entire issue. I don't need to sift through endless piles of nonsense information with absolutely no backing evidence whatsoever on the pretense of getting a handle on the "big picture" so that I can "discern for myself" as more of the puzzle reveals itself in the form of more endless reams of nonsense information. I'll only be alive for an average of 70 years on this planet.
The scientific method has merit. We're not discounting information out of hand here. We only want the bare minimum of rational thought to enter in when viewing new material. I've seen people showing emails of all kinds in this thread now, telling all kinds of backstory about this case, but guess what, you don't get that by reading the single pdf that's posted on the PC homepage. You get one short PDF with no idea who this person is and extremely important questions/comments posted by Bill that without any kind of answer make the material look completely ridiculous.
Perhaps if information like this is going to be posted on the front page of a website that gets millions of visitors Kerry should think about giving a better overview of whats going on, rather than shouting down Bill and making herself look like a fool to the average visitor.