Odd that two twoofers posted Barrett's opinion article to prove the same point Barrett failed making with said article yet can't address the fact that Barrett's opinion was completely wrong.<quoted text>And anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see you're displaying the stereotypical intellectual laziness twoofers have become known for.
1) PressTV is the propaganda wing of the Iranian government. Not really a source that shows honest intent in searching for truth.
(And the hypocrisy is that twoofers continue to blindly "trust" governments known for disseminating pure propaganda biased to their ideology and yet dismiss anything they percieve as coming from a western government.)
2) You've once again mindlessly accepted the opinion of a true scumbag just because that opinion is in congruence with your belief system.
That's the very definition of confirmation bias.
3) You didn't read the paper (which is quite interesting) to verify the drivel Barrett claims about about it.
That's the very definition of intellectual laziness.
4) Barrett gets everything wrong...so worng even the writers of the article decide to respond to his lunacy.
"Our recently published Frontiers study on online communication,ÂWhat about Building 7?Â A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, has been the subject of some chatter on the Internet Â but not quite in the way I had hoped. A story by Kevin Barrett on PressTV.ir has interpreted the study as showing that conspiracists are Âmore saneÂ than conventionalists, and, given that this is an appealing headline for long-suffering conspiracists, has been copy-pasted around the Internet in a highly uncritical fashion. IÂm often guilty of this too Â reading the headline and moving on Â because who has the time to read every original source of every news story? In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the articleÂs conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings."
"I could spend a long time picking apart this reasoning but suffice it to say that this a completely bogus interpretation, and the original error in the article still hasnÂt been corrected despite BarrettÂs obvious awareness of the problem."
If you were after a failing grade in comrehension and research zealot guy, you got it!
Well it's not really odd, it's twoofer S.O.P when proven wrong and the reason twoofers will never get respect.