Quote:
Originally Posted by undetected
There is no "Bill Deagle vs David Wilcock." If you think there is, you're standing too close. Seriously.
Both guys are presenting info they have in the best way they can. You may disagree with their info or their way of presenting it, fine. But there's no need to condemn either of them or accuse them of various stuff just because you don't believe [one of] them.
All these Camelot witnesses are presenting information for you to consider. Use it any way you want. And if you disagree, maybe instead of saying "he's a fraud" or "he's full of sh*t" you could just leave them be and tell us what you believe. There is too much focus on the people instead of on the information.
|
I dissagree. It is equally important to focus on the people as it is their claimed sources and messages. We will never properly grasp the big picture of the modus operandi of the manipulators without a critical analysis of both the message and the messenger. Note i have said a "critical analysis" and that involves allowing a certain amount of latitude for individual creativity and the mild expression of frustration by posters who dissagree with the style and substance of certain whistleblowers. The original poster was rather hastilly banned from where i stand but i'm only up to post number 35... maybe he posted something worse later.