Only people in who are poor (or going to become poor) are capable of a marketing ploy???? Thats nonsense. Whether or not he is rich has nothing to do with him wanting to make more money.oi said:
later,
epic
Richard Clarke 60 Minutes interview this Sunday
- Thread starter John Reynolds
- Start date
later,
epic
Did you notice the 'most likely'? No, I don't think that poor people are the only ones to do this. In fact, I think a poor person has a harder time to even get a chance at the spotlight. But in this case, where a person who I assume have been reasonably wealthy, and then for one reason or another became poor, I think it's a bigger chance of it being pure marketing.
read your own words more carefully you said: If he was becoming poor. What that has anything to do with a marketing ploy is beyond me.oi said:
There are dishonest people who are rich, going to be rich, poor, or going to be poor. Their wealth (or lack of) has nothing to do with whether or not they want to sell a book.
later,
epic
And I don't agree. I posted because I thought Russ' critique didn't really hold any water, but that I could agree if there were any immidieate signs or reasons for Clarke needing some fast cash. You then took that as if it was applicable to everyone, meaning that everyone who's poor were liars and the only ones capable of using pure marketing and financial reasons for writing a book, when I was talking about Clarke and no one else. Of course that doesn't mean that everyone who has a stable economy speaks the truth and nothing but the truth, but it means that if there aren't any obvious financial reasons for him spewing bullshit, then I don't think that you should automatically assume that he's just doing it to earn cash.
Lets just make his motive clear:
-doing it for money
-doing it for kerry
-doing it as revenge
-doing it for the public, informing them of the truth. Also trying to change public policy
-doing it for fame
The above motives dont tell us whether or not he is telling the truth, as none of us were actually in the room to know the truth.
later,
epic
-doing it for money
-doing it for kerry
-doing it as revenge
-doing it for the public, informing them of the truth. Also trying to change public policy
-doing it for fame
The above motives dont tell us whether or not he is telling the truth, as none of us were actually in the room to know the truth.
later,
epic
No, of course not. It's impossible to know if someone is telling the truth if you have no personal experience with what he's talking about. And then how you percieve the situation can be affected with knowledge gained from previous situations, muddling the 'truth' even more. That however doesn't change the fact that all the motives you mentioned can affect how we percieve what he has written. Was he in great need of cash? Then that would make me think that perhaps he's doing it for more than just telling the truth, and hence spicing things up a bit to sell more books. Did he do it to become famous? That could also mean he spices things up a bit, to become more controversial or whatever. His reasons doesn't have to affect what he's written, but it can affect how we think about what he's written. And how do you know his motives btw? Used the same kind of mind reading as you used on me when you said what I meant by my post?
Now, how to interpret this. This specifically tells you that I think that if there was an immidiate need for cash in Clarke's life, then it could be a reason for him to spice things up in his story or marketing. It doesn't say that all poor people try to trick you. It doesn't say that Clarke is a liar. It neither tells you that spicing it up necessarily makes him a liar. It tells you that I think that it could have been a reason for him to present the situation in a way that will in turn generate cash for him.
We don't know his motives, we can only assume what his motives are, and by doing that we can then by ourselves come up with if we think those motives somehow would affect what he's written.
The end.
you are right. Alot of the discussion here really just degenerate into alot of guessing/assuming of the truth.
Something are clear though, he was extremely fearful of cyberattacks in years past. Seems like he was going down the wrong road too. He should be questioning his own insight.
later,
epic
ps did i miss any other motives he might have??
Something are clear though, he was extremely fearful of cyberattacks in years past. Seems like he was going down the wrong road too. He should be questioning his own insight.
later,
epic
ps did i miss any other motives he might have??
epicstruggle said:I cant exactly remember what cnn said, but clarke and the kerry foreign policy team are very closely linked. Clarke has also been a supporter of kerry. I wonder if he might be spicying things up a bit.
AFAIK one of Clarke's associates left the Bush white house and joined as Kerry's National Security Advisor. But that's as far as the connection goes.
epicstruggle said:
AFAWCT, Clarke was indeed shouting from every hilltop inside both administrations. How long does it take to gather all research evidence and write a book with all of your assertions in it? Year? Two?
I thought he was shouting about cyberterrorism. Care to site sources that come from the clinton timeline, where clarke was talking about how dangerous AQ was.Natoma said:
epicstruggle said:
Clarke's book. He went off on Bush and Clinton alike.
http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10970
RussSchultz said:
You don't suppose the he, ('gasp!'), LIED to us now...do you Russ?
Oh no wait, he wouldn't do that....after all, he's the president and the president NEVER lies.
Don't be a simpleton.digitalwanderer said:RussSchultz said:
You don't suppose the he, ('gasp!'), LIED to us now...do you Russ?
Oh no wait, he wouldn't do that....after all, he's the president and the president NEVER lies.
A presidents #1 priority is to get elected. Next is to get re-elected.
Purposefully lying in such a public way (planning on immediately going against one of his primary campaign stances) is simply ludicrous.
You'd have to think the president was a grade A moron that doesn't care about getting reelected.
Oh wait, you probably do. He's a moron, plus an evil genius all rolled into one. A puppet, yet a schemer. There's nothing he can do right, but is capable of just about anything to advance his nefarious plots that are so well hidden, but obvious to those who know the truth.
Joe DeFuria
Legend
RussSchultz said:
And hmmm...Viacom owns both CBS, and the publisher of Clarke's book...
Joe DeFuria said:
Which means the company has a self-serving interest to promote the book for better sales. The actual text of the book, however. . . .
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
...is better suited for selling if it's sensationalized.
John Reynolds said:
Joe DeFuria
Legend
John Reynolds said:
Lol...John Reynolds speaking out against Character Assasination.
Anyway, here's a little ditty on Clarke, written over a year ago:
Richard Clarke's Legacy of Miscalculation
