you guys would be great in the classroom. thanks.

Hey, don't expect me to embark on the perilous journey of paraphrasing Bob. I catch enough grief just by disagreeing with him on certain points.

Besides, "in the classroom" they usually expect you to do the reading assignment before asking questions.

Sorry I can't be more helpful to you.

Indeed...or in a classroom...when you engage someone on a topic, it's often considered a courtesy to provide context for the discussion. in this case, context would be the argument in a lite version.

Bob should be online a little later in the day.

You'll certainly get "the argument" from him, but there ain't no way it's gonna be the "lite version."

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:...when you engage someone on a topic, it's often considered a courtesy to provide context for the discussion.

How is putting the burden on the people who have already put effort into the discussion courteous?
If you're not interested in the examination of details, then why should anybody assume you have a genuine interest in the topic?

I have a genuine interest in the topic, but I don’t have a genuine interest in the name calling, making fun and all the other stupid shit that goes on in those threads. Is it wrong to ask for the argument being made without being required to read the emotional rants of folks who dislike each other? It’s not that big of a deal, IMHO.

Most conspiracy theories online are just the meme-like repetition of posted articles, factoids and pop science obsessions (thermite, for example). Most of those who do the propagation just use copy-paste text to stand up for them. There isn't really a thesis to be proven, just the hunt for obtuse explanations.

Stepping away from familiar turf for amount (ie. diplomatically side stepping 9/11), much of the information comes from clusterfuck blogs and websites such as the (seemingly) far-right www.rense.com, which leads the internet in NWO-hilarity, chemtrails and holocaust denial.

If you follow any of the biggies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_ ... acy_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Wo ... bertson%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons_disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_recruitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Segal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Blue_Beam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_suppression
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaRouche_movement

You can see where they all head back to, profiteering alternative medicine, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny and fear of sex, antisemetism and lots and lots of pop science swill peddling the same obsessions over and over. Perhaps the greatest dominator is the habit of forming "science" "theories" over frames of footage, photographs and the like. Whether it be looking for the Loch Ness monster in a grainy field, or looking for inward dust clouds on 9/11 footage, the methodology speaks volumes. There isn't a theory, much like the guys looking for Nessy don't know the shape of the animal they're looking for, they're just hunting for anomalies to tag as proof of "something".

Baby Jesus have mercy on my soul for posting in this thread.

abcgroupdocumentation wrote:I have a genuine interest in the topic, but I don’t have a genuine interest in the name calling, making fun and all the other stupid shit that goes on in those threads. Is it wrong to ask for the argument being made without being required to read the emotional rants of folks who dislike each other? It’s not that big of a deal, IMHO.

Sounds to me like you may already have at least a passing acquaintance with the threads in question, even though you claim to have never before read one.

The 9/11 Truth movement believes that the events of 9/11 were a government backed/funded and CIA-executed operation involving CIA operatives flying planes into building in conjunction with controlled explosions that were both used to level buildings, thereby killing thousands of people.

Is that concise?

unarmedman--thank you. that's all i wanted to know.

big_dave--thank you too.

i've only glanced at clocker bob's titles in his threads. i tend to stray away from conspiracy theorists. the power of belief is a strong thing and people will go to great lengths to "prove" their ideas; insert creationists who argue "scientifically" here____________. better yet...go to flat earth society web pages and see the detailed arguments will lay out as to why the earth is flat.

with that said, i don't think clocker bob is an ignorant douche. i don't know him or his arguments well enough to say. but...i do know he tends to discuss and argue points that are no great surprise once you read the title of one or two of his threads. plus, my colleague is an avid clocker bob hater, so he keeps me updated on those threads...which he reads avidly.

I'll never understand why you would chose to read something over and over again that you know is gonna chap your ass???

anyway...thanks again for the feedback.