Why everything is always hoax, page 3

I just read the first post, and can only speak for myself. I am a perpetual skeptic. If someone puts forward a concept or idea I've not heard of, I attack it from all sides until I'm convinced it's true or false. While I'm going after these ideas, I'm argueing against the person who put it forward since they're the only authority on why it's true. Meanwhile, I research why it's not true.

My profession fits this personality trait. I'm a software testing manager. I'm given the requirements and specifications for some software that is being developed, and I come up with every possible way to break it, and write plans to break it. I do this extremely well because of my personality. For those of you in the IT field, in our last release, of the 6## bugs discovered in our software, only 3 were found after we released, and they were minor enough to be put off until our next upgrade.

I do that with concepts I start to question or doubt. The latest instance is evolution, which is pretty solid, but there are holes in it. I create debate plans to go after those holes and let people well versed in evolution try to fill them in. ATS isn't the only place I'm doing this at, either.

So in life I'm an optimist, but in my quest to deny ignorance, I'm a pessimist. This is also why I haven't been a Christian all my life, but only for the past 5 years. Before I was an athiest. So my mind can be changed, you just need to have a really solid arguement.

As to the sources, when several articles are shown to be knowingly misleading, such as is the case with rense, I discredit the source. However, that doesn't mean they can't be used as a stepping stone. You can absloutly get a story idea from rense then do some additional research.

I also discredit information and stories with only one source. If there are multiple sources, the information gains a lot more credibility. If I wanted, I could start a blog and state whatever the heck I wanted. That doesn't make it true. Case in point, Time Cube.