No, the only difference is that I provide objective facts which anyone can verify in their own time. I don't just provide a random source of information without any substantiation.
What?
Er, yes I do.
For example, Teki claimed that David Rockefeller is the head of the World Bank and the head of the Bilderberg group. I pointed out that the head of the world bank is actually Robert
Zoellick, and the secretary of the Bilderberg Group is actually
Étienne, Viscount Davignon.
Teki did not know this because he had not bothered to find out. He had simply accepted what he'd been told, without questioning the information or confirming its legitimacy. He was forced to admit that he was wrong.
Imagine if I came up to you one day and said "Neville Fotheringham is the British Prime Minister". Would I be right, or wrong? I'd be wrong, of course. And you could prove this by citing a legitimate source which demonstrates that the British Prime Minister is actually Gordon Brown.
And if I said to you "Well, neither of us is right, and you have no more evidence for your view than I do for mine!" would you accept that? Of course not; you'd be mad to accept it.
See how this works?
Oh really? How do you know what I know? That seems remarkably presumptuous.
Because I am able to prove that what I say is correct.