Whoops!
Looks like I accidentally had the last word.
Unless, of course, you wish to respond . . .

Whoops!
Looks like I accidentally had the last word.
Unless, of course, you wish to respond . . .

I addressed this issue from the beginning. My point remains the same. If you want the last word, be my guest.

I addressed this issue from the beginning. My point remains the same. If you want the last word, be my guest.

My point is, it’s easy to shoot the messenger and is a common tactic of those who do not want to hear the message or wish it to be heard. It is not so easy to shoot down the information. And this is something Jones has always been clear on: you can look up the information yourself from highly credible sources. This is all that matters. Mr. Jones is human, like the rest of us. Information, however, doesn’t have a personality to be attacked, it’ll never suffer from name-calling: it’ll just remain there for as long as it can’t be hidden until you have the guts to look at it for what it is.

My point is, it’s easy to shoot the messenger and is a common tactic of those who do not want to hear the message or wish it to be heard. It is not so easy to shoot down the information. And this is something Jones has always been clear on: you can look up the information yourself from highly credible sources. This is all that matters. Mr. Jones is human, like the rest of us. Information, however, doesn’t have a personality to be attacked, it’ll never suffer from name-calling: it’ll just remain there for as long as it can’t be hidden until you have the guts to look at it for what it is.

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/10/02/feeling-powerless-do-i-have-a-conspiracy-theory-for-you.aspx

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/labnotes/archive/2008/10/02/feeling-powerless-do-i-have-a-conspiracy-theory-for-you.aspx

Taken out of context those sentences may appear contradictory to you. But, in context they are not mutually exclusive.

Since when has it been unnacceptable to concede that someone has achieved a handful of interesting discoveries whilst, at the same time questioning the veracity of their message as a whole?

You have to read between the lines. You can’t ‘ignore the ego’. You have to read between the lines. Jone’s egoistic motivation underscores his message. If you ignore the underlying motivation you run the risk of accepting what he says uncritically. That’s what he wants and that’s dangerous. Question everthing especially people like Jones.

What he’s selling represents a narrow and distorted view of reality.

I concede that he has uncovered some interesting nuggets of information, he presents these nuggets along with a lot of fervent, ranting, paranoid rubbish.

I’m not against jones per se.
I’m open minded. I call it as I see it.

Taken out of context those sentences may appear contradictory to you. But, in context they are not mutually exclusive.

Since when has it been unnacceptable to concede that someone has achieved a handful of interesting discoveries whilst, at the same time questioning the veracity of their message as a whole?

You have to read between the lines. You can’t ‘ignore the ego’. You have to read between the lines. Jone’s egoistic motivation underscores his message. If you ignore the underlying motivation you run the risk of accepting what he says uncritically. That’s what he wants and that’s dangerous. Question everthing especially people like Jones.

What he’s selling represents a narrow and distorted view of reality.

I concede that he has uncovered some interesting nuggets of information, he presents these nuggets along with a lot of fervent, ranting, paranoid rubbish.

I’m not against jones per se.
I’m open minded. I call it as I see it.

OK, Buzz. I’d construct your arguments with a little more fore-thought. At the moment you seem to be hopping backwards and forwards a bit.

As regards Mr. Jones’ ego, I think it’s outside of the remit of considering whether or not his information is sound.

Alex Jone’s credibility is built and sustained on the quality of his information. Without it, his ego is in a very precarious position indeed.

Ignore the ego, it’s a vehicle: communicate the facts that are arriving in it.

OK, Buzz. I’d construct your arguments with a little more fore-thought. At the moment you seem to be hopping backwards and forwards a bit.

As regards Mr. Jones’ ego, I think it’s outside of the remit of considering whether or not his information is sound.

Alex Jone’s credibility is built and sustained on the quality of his information. Without it, his ego is in a very precarious position indeed.

Ignore the ego, it’s a vehicle: communicate the facts that are arriving in it.

Do ‘good journalists’ stand outside Bildeburg conferences shouting at people in limousines through a megaphone “We are not your slaves”.

Regardless of the apparant importance of his discoveries. Jones’s cause is not the seeking of truth however. Jones’s cause is the furtherment of Alex Jones’s ego – under the pretense of seeking the truth.

One can’t deny that he has uncovered some intriguing information. But he isn’t a constructive force for good in this world. I question his motives. Jones’s fervent, self-righteous delivery is reminiscent of Hitler. It chills my bones.

Do ‘good journalists’ stand outside Bildeburg conferences shouting at people in limousines through a megaphone “We are not your slaves”.

Regardless of the apparant importance of his discoveries. Jones’s cause is not the seeking of truth however. Jones’s cause is the furtherment of Alex Jones’s ego – under the pretense of seeking the truth.

One can’t deny that he has uncovered some intriguing information. But he isn’t a constructive force for good in this world. I question his motives. Jones’s fervent, self-righteous delivery is reminiscent of Hitler. It chills my bones.

I warn you, this may require hours of reading.

One thing it won’t require, however, is feverent ratification of his sources or an involved deconstruction of his discourse as – like a good journalist should – he generally lets his sources speak for themselves. In my opinion.

I warn you, this may require hours of reading.

One thing it won’t require, however, is feverent ratification of his sources or an involved deconstruction of his discourse as – like a good journalist should – he generally lets his sources speak for themselves. In my opinion.