gio wrote:Bob, you didn't answer my question about being in a documentary I want to make about conspiracy theorists.

I'd be about as likely to assist you on a documentary about conspiracy theorists as I would be to work with matthew on a documentary about atheism.

gio wrote:First, as for my "evidence" for not paying attention to Avery (or knowing where he was from): I learned that he wanted to make a fiction film, and found out he made a documentary. Evidence enough to make me not interested.

Man, you are fucked in the head. I wanted to become the centerfielder for the NY Yankees when I was 15, but somehow, I became a landscaper when I was 16. Somehow, my previous ambition to be a pro baseball player did not impair my ability to trim a hedge. You read some asswipe on the internet who, like you, couldn't defeat the most popular documentary in the history of the internet on the facts so he chose to make gullible people like gio think that there was nothing worthwhile in Loose Change by telling them that a guy who first wanted to make fictional movies made a documentary instead- you got played and hard. You abandoned your critical thinking at the door because you wanted not to believe. Welcome to Sheepville.

That's not anything like your James Brown analogy. It's more like this:

Me: "who is this band, the Nipples?"
Someone else: "oh, yeah, they were gonna be a glam band but the drummer wouldn't wear makeup, so they're doing the 'political punk' thing instead."
Me: "ok, thanks, I don't need to listen to that shit."

That's so ass backwards, I can barely bring myself to tear it apart. It's like beating up a child. Gio, slowly, follow this- in your wacked out mind, you have decided that Loose Change and 9/11 Truth are interchangeable. In your wacked out mind, you think that because someone convinced you not to trust Dylan Avery, you should not look at any other 9/11 conspiracy theories- like *totally*, don't look, don't think, run away and hide. That's fucking mental, dude- you think that Loose Change ( a film you will not watch ) is indistinguishable from the output of a 5 million person movement, 9/11 Truth. Back to your analogy- you are not simply saying that "I won't listen to this one particular political punk band because of their personal history"; you are saying that you will not listen to all political punk bands on the fucking planet because of what you heard about one particular band! That is the correct analogy between your attitude towards that PP band and your attitude towards Loose Change.

gio wrote:Second: Your ribbon mics analogy is also erroneous. You changed my words again. I said I DIDN'T KNOW you'd take it personally. I SPECIFICALLY SAID I DIDN'T CALL YOU AN IDIOT. thus, it is nothing like your ribbon mic statement, in any way.

Gio, you're lying again, dude. Or you have memory loss. Bad enough that you couldn't bother to read the thread before jumping in, but extra bad that you couldn't even remember that you and I had the exact same exchange in an earlier thread- you remember, the thread where you lied about reasearching 9/11- here it is again:

gio wrote:For example, clocker bob's ramblings and paranoids spamblings on this board have finally, after X months,gotten me to do a little research about this 9.11 hoax bullshit, and find out the facts about how "loose change" is a bunch of bullshit, etc., etc. So (and I say this without irony), thanks to clocker bob... I am now more well-informed. It's just that I don't agree with you, and likely won't on most paranoid-ramblings conspiracy issues.

And my response- damn I'm consistent:

CB wrote: Whenever you feel ready to try and prove your allegations about the 9/11 conspiracy theories ( and not just proclaim that you feel comfortable with your disagreement with them ), the threads are waiting for you. Describe your research material ( I hope it didn't begin and end with screwloosechange.com ).

gio wrote:
So (and I say this without irony), thanks to clocker bob... I am now more well-informed.


You have my invitation to bring your new knowledge to the discussion.

And guess who never returned to that thread, not even to politely decline my invitation to back your bullshit up? Gio. I guess Gio also couldn't remember that Bob wouldn't like it if Gio spouted the same exact bullshit again about 9/11 with boasts he couldn't follow through on. Can't have it both ways, bro, not in my book. Maybe others here will let you slide by with unsubstantiated claims that 'I researched this' or "I'm now well informed', but not me- you are a PRETENDER!

Gramsci wrote:Gee whizz America used it's power to affect the political situation in South American countries! Who would have thought!

The shock!
The surprise!

Give me a break, the rest of the world gets the BBC etc. I had Chilean refugees in my school for fucks sake.

That's not what you said, meatball. You said this:

clocker bob wrote:Chomsky doesn't deny the manipulation of Central American and South American governments by US intelligence operatives. Why he doesn't label these operations as conspiracies, I don't know.

gramsci wrote:That would probably be because this all happened on TV in the bright light of day... i.e. it wasn't a "theory".

Now I ask you again: do you contend that Noam Chomsky's and William Blum's books on CIA interventions in Latin America revealed nothing new to any Americans who chose to read them, because all the information in them was broadcast, in real time, over US television networks ( and not the BBC, you idiot, BBC News was probably seen by 0.0001% of the American TV audience in the early '80's ) during their regular evening newscasts? Nothing Chomsky wrote about was revelatory of any 'hidden plans' ( conspiracies ) to destabilize Latin America? Is that your contention, you one trick pony?

gramsci wrote:Chavez's "Gringo go home" call to arms last week applies to gringos like you too. In fact I fail to see the difference, you still threat Latin people as if you know best. It's typical racist gringo bullshit.

I treat Americans like Chavez knows best, you shitbrain.

gramsci wrote:Have you even been to South America, let alone out of your bedroom?

oh, and we accept pesos.

Sorry, no- my trust fund ran out. Send me a plane ticket.

Gramsci wrote:What most people regard as conspiracy theories simply show they have a totally naive understanding of global capitalism and relationships of power.

And then Gramsci proceeds to describe a stereotypical conspiracy theory.

gramsci wrote:Ooooh, "those bad men that own all the stuff are conspiring to keep their stuff and maybe get some more!!!"

And then Gramsci proceeds to say that awareness of such conspiracies should not be a surprise.

gramsci wrote:Surprise, fucking surprise.

Umm.. Gramzy? Do you understand that 'what most people regard as conspiracy theories' are, you know, theories about conspiracies, you potatohead? If a conspiracy exists ( and you say it does, right here: "those bad men that own all the stuff are conspiring to keep their stuff and maybe get some more!!!" ), then any theory describing that conspiracy is a valid conspiracy theory, and is properly classified as a conspiracy theory. Maybe you're just more out of sorts than usual because your main reason to exist ( matthew ) is AWOL, but you ought to make an effort to stop contradicting yourself three times in the span of three short paragraphs. It's a little unbecoming for a forum luminary like yourself. Apparently, you have the bizarre idea that conspiracy theories are only about things that cannot be proven, and that theories about conspiracies that are provable are no longer conspiracy theories.

What a silly mistake for you to make. Put the two words together. 'conspiracy' and 'theory'. There's no mandatory element of extreme secrecy needed to fulfill the definition of conspiracy theory. Sometimes, there are theories about conspiracies that are quite obvious.

Remember: a conspiracy theory does not have to apply to a 'hidden' conspiracy. A conspiracy theory can apply to a conspiracy which is easily unearthed with a little study.

You're welcome.

boasts? allegations?

bob, read this text very carefully; it is my final word:

I do not care to discuss the situation of 9-11 and its alleged cover-up. I never wanted to. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this. It's the same as saying I don't care to discuss landscaping with you. You are correct, I do not "want to believe." I don't want to get into it. I don't want to go near it.

ok, fucker: maybe I wouldn't be blown the fuck away if they found evidence of controlled demolotion (no pun intended). No evidence of the sort has been reported, and the NSIT itself admits to investigating the option (let me guess, they're controlled by the military-industrial-complex and are not to be trusted; instead, trust dylan avery and his internet-moviemaking cronies) Then, maybe then, there would be some evidence to follow in a bottom-up direction. But until then, i'm not imposing top-down conspiracy theories on this one.

i got a conspiracy theory for ya: dylan avery and co are conspiring to dupe millions of internet surfers and maybe even some people higher up to believe their story, so they gain notoriety and fame. Wait, look, they've suceeded: they are notorious and famous. They have the limelight for an audience of millions. Ride it out now, boys. Smile and enjoy it. I'll be interested to see what y'all are up to ten years from now.

There was a "documentary" phenomenon that took the country by storm about ten years ago: a harrowing tale of some kids who got lost in some haunted woods and met a terrifying demise. The real deal. Millions bought the story... for a while. It was called the Blair Witch project. But that one was even marketed... it wasn't a DIY internet video... because YouTube didn't exist then.

Avery and co have reached a new level of blurring the line of truth... they have even succeeded in engendering real discussions on a real issue, even with a little piece of crap laptop movie full of hearsay and bad rap music and idiotic stories about pods on planes firing missles. It's an unfuckingbelievable media phenomenon. oh, wait, they edited out the idiotic pod missle part when they realized it was bullshit and hurt their credibility. No kidding. Cuz it's nonsense, and they have no credibility.

Evidence of why i am really starting to hate this shit:

popular mechanic's 9-11 debunking site wrote:Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Fuck anyone on the "CLAIM" side of the above statement in the eyehole. Fuck anyone with the inhuman indecency to ever have proposed such a thing.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technol ... tml?page=6

Do i extrapolate this to other 9-11 conspiracy theories? Maybe, yup. Maybe there are "better ones." Ok then. not my camp. I only ever made comments about that stupid internet video. I made a tongue-in-cheeck comment about "being informed." I.e. the video is idiotic. Fuck the people sniffing around the corpses of WTC looking for "loose change." Fuck Dylan Avery, and Bob, I tried and tried to give you a chance, but if you're buying bullshit with loose change, singling me out and spamming me with it, then fuck you too.

wow bob, thanks.

you are right, i was on the fence before on the issue of my opinion of conspiracy theorists. I didn't research the topic.

You have gotten me off the fence. Thanks to you, as conspiracy-theorist representative, I have engendered a substantial prejudice (you were right about this also; the prejudice has grown with your help, by the by); the next time I meet a 9-11 conspiracy theorist, I will think of you, and I will be inclined to punch him straight in the cock, because i will expect him to behave like a vitriolic dick just like you are being.

No shit! If it hadn't been for today, i might have taken the time to hear him out! Maybe you would have gotten me on your side, had you keep your mouth shut! How ironic!

thanks pal!

gio wrote:Bob, you didn't answer my question about being in a documentary I want to make about conspiracy theorists.

This does sound interesting I've wanted to do something on the subject myself and will at some point in the future, finance permitting.

But I have to ask. It sounds like you are approaching the Conspiracy Theorist not as a person who insists upon an unpopular stance but as if they are someone clearly wrong or insane who insist upon unpopular stances despite everyone else knowing they are somehow wrong.

In other words you are approaching your subject with a bias which is the reason I don't think Loose Change has much credibility - not because they were originally going to make a fiction film, I really don't see what difference that should make at all. btw - when you say 'fiction film' do you mean 'dramatisation'?

I also think your refusal to spend any time on studying conspiracy theories would do a disservice to your documentary (given the stated subject) and reveals it to be more of a raspberry blowing exercise than a legitimate study of the psychology of a conspiracy theorist (as if there is only one type of person who is a conspiracy theorist)

Wouldn't that be like doing a documentary on veterans of the Vietnam War but not being bothered to study the war?

Maybe you should do a fiction film instead.

The more I've read this thread the more interested I have become in the psychology of people who automatically refuse to accept the possibility that any conspiracy theory might be on to something.

It just seems a little odd to me.

You do accept that people conspire against others don't you all? Or in your world is everyone open and honest about all of their dealings and the motivations behind them?

big_dave wrote:I assumed that all conspiracy theories came about during the communist witch-hunt years

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a conspiracy theory was pre-world war and one of the motivating factors behind the holocaust

so nothing to do with the communist witch hunt years

that's just one example but it's enough to show your assumption was wrong

you ahistorical cockbag

gio wrote:wow bob, thanks.

you are right, i was on the fence before on the issue of my opinion of conspiracy theorists. I didn't research the topic.

What a gasbag you are. Your story changes like the wind, in relation to how fast your flimsy arguments are getting batted back in your face. You, make a 'movie' on conspiracy theorists?? Great idea, in Double Standard World- gio, the most paranoid and bitter crank on conspiracy theorists I've ever met, has pronounced himself the perfect person to make an unbiased movie on conspiracy theorists. Amazing.Let's examine that- here's gio, who whines like a thousand violins about 'the bias' and the 'meanness' of conspiracy theorists, he's way up on his high horse thinking that he's the fucking Bias Policeman of the world, but he can't admit so many things about himself- like how biased he is!. Oh yes, how much better the world's understanding of conspiracy theorists will be, after the mighty gio, who thinks like this:

gio wrote:"Every time I have engaged in discussion with conspiracy theorists, which is approximately three or four times in my life, via the internet, I have been provoked, annoyed, and generally bemused by garden-path arguments that lack conclusions and retain a consistent level of ambiguity. I find this frustrating. It gets worse when they internalize arguments against their positions and retort with unnecessary ad hominem arguments. I have witnessed conspiracy theorists attack their detractors with ad-hominem arguments which, to paraphrase, often get into the territory of "those who do not wish to spend time digging into conspiracies are "spineless" or "lazy" or "satisfied with the status quo."" I think this is bullshit. There is a line between paranoia and skepticism. I find conspiracy to be uncomfortably on the side of paranoia. These arguments could theoretically continue for decades and end up nowhere. If their theories prove correct, good for them. I'll stay away, thanks."

makes his movie on conspiracy theorists! Ahh, yes, in Double Standard World where Gio lives, it's perfectly fine for rage-filled cowards who won't look at evidence on a mass murder to make what I'm sure he thinks will be an unbiased movie on conspiracy theorists. Gio can have bias exploding out of his anus like diarrhea and tell the world that he has this cute idea for a documentary on conspiracy theorists, and he could have the gall to ask the only conspiracy theorist he knows, me, to contribute, but then, the very same Gio can state:

"I'm not going to watch Loose Change. I heard Dylan Avery was biased."

You clown. You have zero credibility on conspiracy theorists, because you're actually too afraid to look at goddamn conspiracy theories ( and you try and excuse that fear away with wild claims that conspiracy theories are not worthy of your attention- there's no out of control ego on display there, right gio? ).You have the temerity to hide from the entire field of 9/11 conspiracy theories based on your secondhand suspicions about Avery's ego, but then you nominate yourself to make a movie on CT's? Who gets to have bias in this world, gio- only you?

How do you live with yourself, you hate-filled bigot, you erratic hypocrite, you sanctimonious twat?

gio wrote:I do not care to discuss the situation of 9-11 and its alleged cover-up. I never wanted to. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this.

THEN KEEP THE OPINIONS YOU DO NOT WANT ARGUED WITH IN YOUR DAMN HEAD. DO NOT BRING THEM TO A PUBLIC MESSAGEBOARD, BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE ARGUMENTS START.

What kind of mess is in your head that you think you can post this and then subsequently think you can claim to 'not want an argument'? Fuck you. Are you a sucker punch artist? Do you think you can duck into a thread on a public forum, kick someone in the shin, and not face retaliation?? Grow the fuck up. These are your words. I didn't steal them from your head and put them on the board.

gio wrote:so ironic how polemecists always complain about the bias of others. Kinda reminds me of whackjob right-wing talk radio, in a creepy way.

personally, I think the "babbling paranoid" could serve a potentially useful purpose of getting people who actually think logically to start thinking about issues that they don't encounter in the popular media. Maybe.

For example, clocker bob's ramblings and paranoids spamblings on this board have finally, after X months, gotten me to do a little research about this 9.11 hoax bullshit, and find out the facts about how "loose change" is a bunch of bullshit, etc., etc. So (and I say this without irony), thanks to clocker bob... I am now more well-informed. It's just that I don't agree with you, and likely won't on most paranoid-ramblings conspiracy issues.

i mean this withoutantogonism. Truly. It just also saddens me when I stop by a protest, say, perhaps about workers rights in Vancouver (the last protest I stopped by) they seems to come with a side-order of 9.11 hoax propaganda that has nothing to do with the issue being addressed. This annoys me, for some reason.

Do you know how to hold your tongue to avoid trouble that you do not want?! I learned it starting at about age 10. The way that you beg for a double standard is pathetic. Go find a blackboard, Bart Simpson. Write this on it one hundred times:

"Gio found a 9/11 argument on a public message board and then he added a post."

"Gio, a grown man, is shocked to find that he got an argument back".

Dude, you must be insane to think that words don't matter as fiercely as you do. Take your 'post' on the 9/11 conspiracy theories ( that you swore a dozen times you wouldn't argue ) and shove it up your hypocritical contradictory confused ass. I'd tear it apart, but then you'd run and hide again.

gio wrote:No shit! If it hadn't been for today, i might have taken the time to hear him out! Maybe you would have gotten me on your side, had you keep your mouth shut! How ironic!

LIAR! Your words precede you. Do not make false claims about your open-mindedness. Your words precede you. This forum has a (bad) search function. Here you were in December:

gio wrote: whackjob ... creepy way... "babbling paranoid" ... clocker bob's ramblings and paranoids spamblings on this board .... this 9.11 hoax bullshit, and find out the facts about how "loose change" is a bunch of bullshit ...paranoid-ramblings conspiracy issues.

9.11 hoax propaganda

Learn to juggle the present and the past in your mind, and then use that new ability to keep your story straight. And gio? Your ego is off charts. 'Get me on your side'? Who would want someone who thinks like you on our side? You're a mess. You can't even watch a movie because you're afraid of what's in it.