The pressure to hit publish is strong, despite grammar and typos. Trying again (again... I will leave it at this, because it is FB and not a news source, per se): "You ramble on as if your [sic] saying something, but I get nothing." (a comment about the blog). While something about Mike Adams and Natural News makes my spider-sense tingle (other than his own oxymoronic statement that he is a "tolerant Christian"), after attempting to get through the post, my experience mirrors the comment, above. If Mike Adams is using Natural News as a vehicle of deception, there has to be a better way of making the point. The author uses many weasel-words (fallacious reasoning), e.g., If this is true, if he really is connected, as well as statements about his gut feelings, as if that is proof. Saying something "may be" true is the equivalent of saying that it may not be true, at all. If there is a good argument buried in here, can you find it? I understand that gut feelings are important, but the author uses this as evidence. e.g., Mike avoided running in to him again, and that is "proof" that he is right about him. ??? Also, when describing his methodology, the author makes it too confusing to follow. "If" there is something about Adams to expose, surely we can do better than this: "You know what, as I go over the other 4 points that he makes having planned to decode this entire verbose article for you (very long winded), I’m thinking I’ll let you do the rest." ??? More weirdness. fourthdimensionalrecovery.wordpress/2012/10/21/10-20-2012-the-case-against-mike-adams-health-ranger/
Posted on: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 21:29:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015