Explanation: conspiracy theories
Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 2:56 pm
holy crap that's the funniest thing I've seen in weeks.
alandeus wrote:gio wrote:Holy fuck, what an appropriate day for this discussion.
Here ya go, Bob: go to town on this one.
You get Horatio Sanz drunk enough, he'll confess to anything.
gio wrote:Holy fuck, what an appropriate day for this discussion.
Here ya go, Bob: go to town on this one.
clocker bob wrote: Thank you. We're done. You have agreed that the official history of 9/11 is inadequate. Now, if you have some sense of honesty, you will go back to the first post you made in this thread, where you wrote this:gio wrote:Conspiracy theories have none of these qualities. They are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence.
and reword it to state this:
"I personally don't like to spend much time on conspiracy theories, so I can't say for sure which ones are CRAP and which ones aren't. I am unwilling to debate the merits of any particular conspiracy theory, so I would be drastically overstepping the bounds of my limited research by making an unsubstantiated, broadbrush and pejorative claim like "Conspiracy theories are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence"; frankly, I haven't done nearly enough research on conspiracy theories to sort the good from the bad. I do think that there is information yet to be learned about 9/11 in particular, so I commend all those who continue to research those events, and will withhold judgement on their research until I've actually looked at it."
Signed,
Earwicker wrote:clocker bob wrote: Thank you. We're done. You have agreed that the official history of 9/11 is inadequate. Now, if you have some sense of honesty, you will go back to the first post you made in this thread, where you wrote this:gio wrote:Conspiracy theories have none of these qualities. They are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence.
and reword it to state this:
"I personally don't like to spend much time on conspiracy theories, so I can't say for sure which ones are CRAP and which ones aren't. I am unwilling to debate the merits of any particular conspiracy theory, so I would be drastically overstepping the bounds of my limited research by making an unsubstantiated, broadbrush and pejorative claim like "Conspiracy theories are often a rambling vomit of facts skewed by bias and ingorance towards reasonable evidence"; frankly, I haven't done nearly enough research on conspiracy theories to sort the good from the bad. I do think that there is information yet to be learned about 9/11 in particular, so I commend all those who continue to research those events, and will withhold judgement on their research until I've actually looked at it."
Signed,
Also Gio I'm curious as to whether you are going to agree with this re wording of your statement?
big_dave wrote:The vast majority of "conspiracy" language is loaded with the fear that clever people are organising themselves against you.
Flaneur wrote:Does the presence of WMDs in Iraq circa 2002 count as a conspiracy theory?
are conspiracy theories only those which debunk the official story?
big_dave wrote:I assumed that all conspiracy theories came about during the communist witch-hunt years, anti-left and anti-intellectual in their make up.
big dave wrote:What could be more retarded than the basic fear that people you loath might dare to organise themselves. Crap.
clocker bob wrote:What could be more retarded than not knowing that the mother lode of conspiracy theories, 9/11, came 15 years after the end of the Cold War and 40 years after the communist witch-hunt years?
big dave wrote: you ahistorical nitwit.
big dave wrote:I assumed that all conspiracy theories came about during the communist witch-hunt years, anti-left and anti-intellectual in their make up.
big dave wrote:The vast majority of "conspiracy" language is loaded with the fear that clever people are organising themselves against you.
big dave wrote: Come to think of it, it means almost the exactly the same thing for thought as "organised labour" means for physical work.
big dave wrote:This is not a set of terminology that I'd feel comfortable being on the same page as.