Quote:
Originally Posted by twotoner
I'm not saying its real or fake. I frankly don't know. Just think it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
|
I remember a segment last week when Jon Stewart was showing a bunch of clips of Glen Beck saying stuff like:
"I have no idea if this is true or not, but I thought I would bring it up because it's interesting"
or
"Right now this is all conjecture, but I thought it was interesting".
Like, "I heard someone say that twotoner likes to dress in women's underwear. At present, there is no proof, I have no idea if it is true or not, but I find it interesting."
The point was how disingenuous it is to say "Oh, I just brought this up because I find it interesting" when the real motivation is that you want to inject doubt without hard solid fact to inject doubt.
It's the same language I got in that letter in my mailbox about the H1N1 vaccine. Most everything was a question. "Is it really safe? Have they really tested it enough? Do you want to risk your children's health?" The rest was "isn't it interesting" such as "It is interesting that Health Canada let this vaccine through so fast."
If you are going to post something incendiary at least have the "Stephen Colbert's Balls" to back it up and not hide behind "I just thought this was interesting".
-=-=-=-=-=-
I REALLY have a hard time believing that those with a vested interest in proving global warming have more money to bribe scientists than those with a vested interest in disproving global warming. It took a very long time for science to prove tobacco was harmful because those with a vested interest in proving that it was harmful had less money than those with a vested interest in disproving that it was harmful.