[inquest]

If the source is claiming to present original information as an original source, then it's logical to present information regarding its reliablity as a source. When it comes to AIG, it's unlikely that anyone but creationists would believe that information in the first place.

But if it's presenting information with references to other sources, and drawing conclusions based on that information, the only way to counter it would be to present other facts and/or correct the logic it uses. Simply casting general aspersions about the site would not be persuasive.

[Quix]

Ahhhhhhh,

But it seems that you are assuming that his hostility to our perspectives and choice of discussion topics is logical vs emotional to begin with.

I consider that a very flawed hypothesis--based on the evidence.

[Right Wing Professor]

But if it's presenting information with references to other sources, and drawing conclusions based on that information, the only way to counter it would be to present other facts and/or correct the logic it uses.

Paranoid schizos are often amazingly logical. Sometimes, you just gotta step back and say 'that's crazy talk, man!'