"Forgery" simply means being copied from something else,
Yeah, from a work of fiction. Or did you really think that Napoleon III had conversations with Niccolo Machiavelli? It would explain why you have enough screws loose to make the Protocols your Bible.
does not mean a fabrication or inherently false.
ROFL. "Fake but accurate".
Even Joseph Goebbels realized that the Protocols were as fake as it gets. But he had a Ph.D. in literature when it meant something, while you are a witless Stormfag.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something
If it were just the media saying it, people would be justified in not believing it one way or the other - as nothing that the media says should be believed on its say-so.
You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
Like what, the Donation of Constantine?
just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it.
It takes someone either completely ignorant of its contents, or quite stupid, to not 'dismiss' it.
And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause
It's one thing not to latch on to 'debunked' like some soyface, it's quite another to believe the most absurd things.
Yeah, from a work of fiction. Or did you really think that Napoleon III had conversations with Niccolo Machiavelli? It would explain why you have enough screws loose to make the Protocols your Bible.
ROFL. "Fake but accurate".
Even Joseph Goebbels realized that the Protocols were as fake as it gets. But he had a Ph.D. in literature when it meant something, while you are a witless Stormfag.
I'm just saying that the media's tactics to discredit something is to immediately call it a "forgery" which has nothing to do with the content itself, just that it was not the original source. You see this a lot with historical documents that people would rather not want to be acknowledged.
I haven't actually read it myself, just seen the knee-jerk response that happens when somebody isn't willing to outright dismiss it. And with the recent amount of things being "debunked" that tends to mean you should give it pause, but obviously not totally believe it because of that alone.
If it were just the media saying it, people would be justified in not believing it one way or the other - as nothing that the media says should be believed on its say-so.
Like what, the Donation of Constantine?
It takes someone either completely ignorant of its contents, or quite stupid, to not 'dismiss' it.
It's one thing not to latch on to 'debunked' like some soyface, it's quite another to believe the most absurd things.