Ignoring it is worse since it'll lead to people thinking it is accurate,
And those 2 presenters are cherry picking feedback and making it about them. If was well done, they wouldn't have gathered that much hate for it. If they could put their bruised egos aside, they see how they could rectify it.
But no, we get a bunch of "I'm washing my hands of it"
Pertho has a background in anthropology and writes better articles. Fund that dude.
thats a blanket statement and not necessarily true x...
you dont counter extreme stupidity with flailing your arms and calling them liars. you play fighting games think about it. when you play that ghandi guy who is just batshit stupid/has no idea what hes doing....what do you do? what is the strongest counter to that? you can do what dawson did and try to read them and reason with them/ press buttons back (look how that turned out), or you can sit back and destroy them with nothing and pull the rug of credibility out from under them. which is more powerful? if you see national enquirer posting bullshit stories about you coming from space do you call a press conference to call them liars? cmon son let that go. ppl who would believe those lies arent real anyway.
my queestion x, is who is watching these clowns thinking that they have any credibility whatsoever?
i guess its true, we dont know who is. but even so, if they were someone who would take an unprofessional presentation like that and not hold it in question, why would that person matter anyway?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Culture-D...ie=UTF8&filterBy=addFiveStar&showViewpoints=0
the reviews are coming in
