I have never said that there were no differentiation between sources. I have never said that there was so such thing as an inherently bad well-respected source, nor have I said that all sources were of equal weight. That fact seems to have eluded you and your friends. What I have said is that is is prudent to consider what is being said, on its own merits rather than passing a carte blanche judgment on something because it's from a different news source than what you're accustomed to reading.

Case in point, at the bottom of this thread is HansMoleman's post: "^^^^Reads Natural News". That's as arrogant, condescending, closed-minded and stupid as they come. It is a fact that there is much good to be gleaned from natural sources. It is not saying that everything they say is the gospel truth, or that it shouldn't be viewed critically. My personal opinion on that particular source is that there are a lot of unsubstantiated claims, many of which are highly suspect.

My only assertion is that the content (stripped of all the inherent hyperbole, attacks, agendas etc.) of any site be viewed for what it is: another possible idea with potential validity. But HansMoleman used it to cast aspersions on the previous post.

So Erkimust reads all those sources. Whoopdido! We all do. That's nothing special. His summary dismissal of any other sources because they may contain fantastic headlines or wild click bait has nothing to do with considering the actual content that ***sometimes*** debuts on their sites. I don't make it a habit of reading them first...but just as the OP this morning said, he found it interesting... and passed it along for those who might care while he was on his way into the office.

The careful reader would read it, filter the hyperbole out of it, then collaborate the claims against other sources. The intellectually lazy would simply ignore all the caveats so carefully placed at the beginning and jump on the wagon to condemn someone because they didn't do all the research and collaboration for them.