I believe the "U" has provided this "proof" for those who need something based more on hard data than what whistleblowers blow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjkted
From Cliff:
Note that they NEVER defend the information itself, and rather are ALWAYS defending their sources based on personality, and not factual presentation (truth). Further, the apparent (by their actions) only criteria for them to consider someone a ‘whistleblower’ is that the person ‘believe’ their own story. All that is necessary for Project Camelot to consider someone a whistleblower and a 'true guy' is that the person present themselves such that Project Camelot 'feels' that the person believes what they are saying.
This is the biggest problem I see. He hit the nail on the head. This is a big point. It's worth repeating several times. It's the difference between watching science fiction and a real report on what is happening in the world. It's the difference between following your favorite celebrity because you like their style and following someone who knows what they're doing because their facts line up and they know what they're doing.
People take this information seriously. It's a whole lotta work to keep researching these sources and correlating this information. Any disinfo sources should be exposed because of how serious it is to get accurate information. Giving the I trust this guy because he's my pal spiel is just irresponsible IMO.
--sjkted
|