3 ms·

My own belief: it's unfair to attack his credibility without providing anything about the content of this post. If something is not accurate here, please let u

• EliRivers 7y ago
  My belief; it is not unfair (he is deliberately presenting himself as a source of truth in the matter, publicly and openly), and I did not attack his credibility. I invited you to consider the source. Perhaps you conclude, after consideration, that he is an especially credible source.
  • richrichardsson 7y ago
    > Craig Murray's website suggests he is, for example, a credulous believer of Russian explanations for events. He does on occasion correct himself (such as in his post about the famed picture of two different people walking through two different channels - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/09/the-impossib.... ) but nonetheless he has a long-standing mindset which will temper his beliefs and of course colour everything he sees and his interpretations thereof. and you somehow think > I did not attack his credibility
    • EliRivers 7y ago
      Ah, I see. In which case, then yes. I attack his credibility. I attack yours. I attack mine. You are biased. I am biased. He is biased. Everything you write is tempered. Everything I write is tempered. His credibiltiy is compromised and the source must be considered, as is yours, as is mine. This shouldn't be controversial, yet here we are. Seriously, here we are.