Quite frankly, The fact that Allan seems to posses what many might consider less than well vetted reports is irrelevant to the discussion of his reporting on Rossi. This was another dispicaple example of krivit exploiting the investigative content and style of an individual practicing the same profession Krivit thinks he himself is practicing. Its sole intention was to suggest through innuenendo that Allan, because he reported what someone else told him about a secret trip to Mars that Obama was alleged to have completed, should be openly ridiculed for reporting it. What was conveniently lost in the attack on Allan's Obama article is that Allen is willing to report unorthodox sources of news that are not well vetted, whereas most others aren't. IMHO to attack an individual for nothing more than their professional philosophy to report more -things- than what the rest of the reporting pack are willing to report on was another opportunistic cheap shot, complements of Krivit. This was scraping the bottom of the barrel. It suggests to me that Krivit is running out of actual facts he can use against those he disagrees with. Threrfore, attack their professional character. And by innuendo it conveniently attacks their personal character by attempting throw dispursions on their beliefs. Deflect. Deflect. Deflect.
By the very same reasoning I should be publicly ridiculed for having risked reporting on my occasional conservations of what the "witch doctor" has said to me. I reported on the WD because I found such conversations interesting and hoped that others might find the content occasionally thought provoking as well. Reporting on such matters is not the same thing as believing in them, nor expecting others to believe in them either. In Allan's case he performed no crime other than simply reporting on the alleged Obama event. IMHO, Allan showed professionalism by NOT adding his own personal thoughts and personal beliefs on the matter. Meanwhile, Krivit seems incapable of NOT introducing his own personal beliefs into the Rossi affair. WHO is behaving more professionally here? In any case, Allan should not be publicly ridiculed for doing nothing more than reporting the alleged event. Let me try to end this personal rant of mine (painstakingly performed on an ipad without spellchecker on) by stressing the fact that BELIEF has nothing to do with the issues here. However, Krivit is exploiting what Allan reported. krivit is attempting to insinuate to readers that what Allan reported is by default what Allan must believes, and therefore by deliberate innuendo destroy, Allan's professional reputation as a reporter. Krivit knows this is exactly the kind of innuendo that many skeptics love to wallow in - and subsequently parrot. It was a deliberate calculated attempt on Krivit's part to get others (particularly skeptics) to do his dirty work for him. This is the exact same dispicable behavior i witnessed from Kriviypt when he went on a radio interview to indirecly insinuate that certain CF researchers had deliberately manipulated their experimental results. It also got me removed from Krivit's NET BoD when I complained to him about what it exactly was that he did. Krivit is showing that he wants to get OTHERS to say the dirty things for him, and by doing so, add the illusion of additional authenticity to his personal beliefs. By resorting to these kinds of seedy tactics Krivit is burning his bridges faster than what is healthy for any "reporter" to undertake. Regards Svj Orionworks.com Sent from my iPad On Nov 12, 2011, at 1:19 AM, Mary Yugo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Next Few Months > > * New customers of the one megawatt E-Cat plant reveal their identity > publicly. > * Location of first E-Cat factory in the United States revealed." > > And why do you believe that will happen? Because Sterling Allan wrote it? > He's the same guy who had Obama in Mars for Cripes' sake!
