Posted By:
Todd (nolemmings)I don't think his remarks should be discredited just because he might not want to tell us much about himself. I simply take what he posts with a grain of salt--the size of which would go down dramatically if he would offer up some evidence of his credentials. If what he says is true, and some of it appears to be subject to other verification, how much does it matter whether he's a documented expert of some sort or the town drunk?
Don't get me wrong--to the extent he appears to want people to join his group, he can pretty much forget about the bunch on this board until he offers up some reason to believe his cause is worthwhile and that he is worthy of leading it. So I won't be hooking the horse to his wagon anytime soon.
Still and again, even if he as the source could be shown to be tainted, which certainly remains to be seen, I for one have no problem with him bringing the issues to this board for discussion. After all, it does appear that at least some newswriters have reported on a couple of these matters, and I used to feel comfortable saying that they wouldn't report it without some investigation (then Walter Cronkite retired). Let such threads stand or fall on their own, at least until such time as they become distractingly overblown and devoid of interest, which I suspect will be in the eyes of the beholder.