Deep Politics Forum

Dr. Jim, why did you edit a post that was written in its entirety by your expert?

Because he asked me to make some changes. Is that OK with you?

Adrian Mack Wrote:Dr. Jim, why did you edit a post that was written in its entirety by your expert?

Quote:Because he asked me to make some changes. Is that OK with you?

Not really, when you're asking us to take your word about the existence of this person. Who insists so vehemently on the exercising of logic. But thanks for clarifying.

Well, frankly, I couldn't care less. That he is willing to take the time to deal with this makes me indebted to him. I'll take him out to dinner next time we see each other. In the meanwhile, he made another nice point about your intellectual shortcomings:

Now as far as Eustace Mullens. Even a researcher who is far to the right or disrespected by some can still be correct in some of his ideas, like his view that there was collaboration between medicine, big pharma, and the cancer association to keep from finding a cancer cure. That must be individually researched and evaluated on its own merit.

Adrian Mack Wrote:

Quote:Because he asked me to make some changes. Is that OK with you?

Not really, when you're asking us to take your word about the existence of this person. Who insists so vehemently on the exercising of logic. But thanks for clarifying.

Quote:Now as far as Eustace Mullens. Even a researcher who is far to the right or disrespected by some can still be correct in some of his ideas, like his view that there was collaboration between medicine, big pharma, and the cancer association to keep from finding a cancer cure. That must be individually researched and evaluated on its own merit.

I could get the same news from the Church of Scientology, but would I use it as a source?

Until he mentioned Eustace Mullens, I had never heard of him. So I would not be citing him as a source, either. But with so much material here that is of such extraordinary interest, why are you so fixated upon trivialities? Don't answer, because I really don't want to know. If you have better things to do, then spend your time on other threads.

Adrian Mack Wrote:

Quote:Now as far as Eustace Mullens. Even a researcher who is far to the right or disrespected by some can still be correct in some of his ideas, like his view that there was collaboration between medicine, big pharma, and the cancer association to keep from finding a cancer cure. That must be individually researched and evaluated on its own merit.

I could get the same news from the Church of Scientology, but would I use it as a source?

Quote:Until he mentioned Eustace Mullens, I had never heard of him. So I would not be citing him as a source, either. But with so much material here that is of such extraordinary interest, why are you so fixated upon trivialities? Don't answer, because I really don't want to know. If you have better things to do, then spend your time on other threads.

Do you normally co-sign information that you aren't sure about?

If you are saying you reject Eustace Mullens as a source, does that mean you reject your expert as reliable?

These are hardly trivialities.

David Guyatt Wrote:If you'll forgive me for saying so, and with no disrespect to you personally, I think it is you who are struggling with the apparent conflict that interconnectedness is the reality of the world in which we live.

Compartmenting subjects is completely understandable.

In the last analysis none of us really wishes or wants to digest the indigestible.

But this is exactly what we must do if we are to have any meaningful impact on our world as it is currently configured.

I'm as sorry about this as you are.

Well said, David.
:congrats::congrats::congrats:

Quote:If you'll forgive me for saying so, and with no disrespect to you personally, I think it is you who are struggling with the apparent conflict that interconnectedness is the reality of the world in which we live.

Compartmenting subjects is completely understandable.

In the last analysis none of us really wishes or wants to digest the indigestible.

But this is exactly what we must do if we are to have any meaningful impact on our world as it is currently configured.

I'm as sorry about this as you are.

[size=12]Thanks David. I'm not making myself clear. [/SIZE]

I understand the interconnectedness of Deep Politics. But we need to exercise discernment.

Let me put it this way: Dr. Fetzer has acted as a conduit for Baker’s material, which deserves to be assessed on its own merits.

Instead, he’s introduced an anonymous “expert” whose fatuous appeals to authority are so questionable that even Fetzer is backpeddling now.

So what was the point? And how does that help Baker?

And why is Fetzer still making statements about Armstrong’s book before he’s read it?

Quote:
Until he mentioned Eustace Mullens, I had never heard of him. So I would not be citing him as a source, either. But with so much material here that is of such extraordinary interest, why are you so fixated upon trivialities? Don't answer, because I really don't want to know. If you have better things to do, then spend your time on other threads.

Do you normally co-sign information that you aren't sure about?

If you are saying you reject Eustace Mullens as a source, does that mean you reject your expert as reliable?

These are hardly trivialities.

Are you going to answer me?