[quidnunc]

FairOpinion wrote: So, if you don't like Debka, don't read it. But what is your interest in turning every thread which mentions any news from Debka into a Debka-bashing fest?

Denizens of Free Republic need to know that Debka is of questionable reliability and that caveat lector (let the reader beware) is the order of the day when reading stuff from there.

You may be getting the inside skinny, but then again it may be pure bullbleep and there's no sure way to know which it is.

I think a good rule of thumb is that the more sensational the article the less likely it is to be factual.

[FairOpinion]

So why don't you post articles about the unreliability of the NY Times, CNN and so on, every time anyone posts a news item from them?

Everyone know about Debka and everyone can make up their minds. Your ferocious anti-Debka crusade doesn't make me wonder about Debka, but makes me wonder why you are so fanatic about it.

I was told about Debka sometime before 9-11, it was from something someone posted. I had no preconceived notions either way. Then I started to follow them and found them quite reliable about a lot of things, with a lot of good analyses too.

So why can't you let others go, read it, find out, and decide for themselves, instead of trying to tell everyone what they should think?