Canuckster wrote:cut the shit, you're making leading generalizations in an attempt to discredit without a proper discourse on the matter with a smug attitude to boot, as far as im concerned, if you're not a shill, you're doing the job of one, there's a reason I or others don't want to discuss with you, it's because you're not discussing you are generalizing opinion in an attempt to either make one side lose their cool or say something stupid to further discredit them and reinforce your own narrative.
lol @ cut the shit. that’s the thing now isn’t it? I’m trying to have proper discourse on the matter but you keep responding without actually saying anything or addressing any of my points. I keep asking you questions & all you do is respond with some shill bullshit, like I’m trying to trip you up by making you think. if you say something stupid, that's on you.
which brings me to my next point...
I see exactly what you're doing, cherry picking some articles from something in discussion because someone uses them, then attempt to discredit them by throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't think I can't see your argument tactics for what they are. and they aren't worth debating, because debating isn't what you do, you act smug and snide and beat a dead horse on matters that are inconsequential to the discussion at hand. because you seem to love compartmentalizing a topic and then ridiculing someone with things that frankly were never said and questions that were never raised or discussed.
piss off until you can hold a decent discussion without the smugness and holier than thou attitude, that's all I will say on the matter.
so someone asking your opinion, or challenging you to make a “valid argument”, is now an argument tactic? lol. that’s some real EY shit right there. & how are these matters inconsequential to the discussion @ hand? was the discussion @ hand not trust/mistrust of the MSM or alt media?
LOL @ "throwing the baby out with the bath water", are these examples posted not proof enough that he spreads mis or disinformation? how many more do you need? what, in your opinion, makes him solid? do you think makow vets his information like any solid journalist would do? if so, how? do you think he really believes that stuff?
do you believe that stuff?
appears to me that I’m trying to discuss this media/alt media trust issue & all you want to do is talk about me. how about this...
this bullshit previously posted by henry makow, do you honestly think that those are simply “errors in judgement” or mistakes?
