clocker bob wrote:

gio wrote:Thanks, I'll get in touch with you when I have a whole bunch of time to waste worrying about shit I don't need to worry about... like fake documentaries made by some stupid kid from LA.

Look at those words: 'shit' 'waste of time' stupid kid'. See any personal attacks against conspiracy theorists there? And wow, you'd think from reading that, gio would be loaded for bear on conspiracy theories, gnashing at the bit to blow some conspiracy theories out of the water....umm, no.

Haha, you're right: I made it quite clear that I think Loose Change is stupid.

I didnt' look at the first 6 pages of the debate. I definitely didn't think that saying "conspiracy theories are often crap (vomit, rambling, etc)" would be taken as "Clocker Bob is a rambling idiot." Apparently that's the connotation 'round these parts. Well, sorry Bob, that's not what I meant. Even more sorry that you would take it as such; it's kind of a shame that you can't relax about that, but maybe that's what ticks your clock, so well, ok.

But I do think Loose Change is a waste of time. It's an opinion that I don't care to debate. I've discredited that one based on the facts of its production alone, which I said before. Call me "comfortable within conventional wisdom" all you like (I took that as a personal affront, btw, hence the ensuing shit).

Bob, I don't think you're an idiot, but I do think you're insulting. That's cool; i'm sure you don't care much.

so yeah, i'm not interested in conspiracy theories. I don't care to debate their validity. I think they are likely to be a nonsensical waste of time; call it a prejudice if you like.

I'm starting to get really really interested in people's belief in them, though. Hey Bob, how do you feel about being in an anonymous documentary?

gio wrote:Haha, you're right: I made it quite clear that I think Loose Change is stupid.

And I have never tried to deny you your right to have that opinion of Loose Change. What I have offered you is a chance to support your opinion. I think it is silly to have opinions that I will not argue. You apparently don't. You say, "Well, I read that some stupid kid in LA wanted to make a name for himself by making a movie, so therefore, I dismiss his movie". Not only did you not know Dylan Avery's name or from where he was from, you are resting your opinion of the content of Loose Change on something completely distinct from the content of LC: whether Dylan Avery has a normal ego. What kind of cheap shot artist are you? Do you think that the sum value of all 9/11 conspiracy theories is on display in Loose Change? Do you think that disliking the ego of Dylan Avery cancels out the merits of every 9/11 theory, in Loose Change or not?

That's some sketchy reasoning. Why shouldn't I call you on that, especially when you follow it with a slur against all conspiracy theories. I didn't follow you to your house and demand your opinion of conspiracy theories, you waved it in my face on a public messageboard. You can invent any rationale you want for not backing your words up, but the end result is: you're not backing them up. How much special treatment do you want? I have to sit on my keyboard hands? It would be one thing if you chose to walk away from the argument at the beginning, but you didn't, so right there, you're behaving in a manner that is incongruous with your professed refusal to argue about conspiracy theories.

gio wrote:I didnt' look at the first 6 pages of the debate.

That's a bad habit. If there was a thread that was six pages long titled 'Best Kraut Rock', would you just jump on on page six with 'Can!' Wouldn't you care if the same opinion had been offered on page one? Why should I excuse your disregard for the custom of getting caught up with a conversation before jumping in?

gio wrote: I definitely didn't think that saying "conspiracy theories are often crap (vomit, rambling, etc)" would be taken as "Clocker Bob is a rambling idiot."

Gio, come on. Would you post something here like "Only idiots use ribbon mics on guitar cabinets" and be surprised that steve took offense?

Apparently that's the connotation 'round these parts. Well, sorry Bob, that's not what I meant. Even more sorry that you would take it as such; it's kind of a shame that you can't relax about that, but maybe that's what ticks your clock, so well, ok.

I'm totally relaxed. I'm sorry you don't believe that the components of one's personal ideology are worth defending. You certainly flew farther off the handle than me here. You have announced you were quitting the thread four times so far. Check the rationality of your own behavior before you judge mine.

But I do think Loose Change is a waste of time. It's an opinion that I don't care to debate. I've discredited that one based on the facts of its production alone, which I said before.

I'm sorry that such an embarrassing admission of your bizarre deductive processes is comfortable for you to post on a public messageboard. That is about on a level with saying that you discredit the music of James Brown because you heard that he yelled at his band often. Seriously, it's that bad. Here's my X-Ray of your thought process:

You watched Loose Change, heard a bunch of questions you had never heard asked before, and went looking for someone to give you a blanket you could pull back over your head. You found screwloosechange.com ( and like, there's no reason whatsoever to suspect there might be pro-official myth bias there ), quickly glommed onto the very biased section about who Dylan Avery is, and said, "Oh, thank god! That is my ticket out of examining any actual evidence on 9/11! Avery's got an ego! Phew, that was close- almost had to look at a conspiracy theory."

gio wrote: Call me "comfortable within conventional wisdom" all you like (I took that as a personal affront, btw, hence the ensuing shit).

All you have to do to shake off that personal affront is to demonstrate to me that you are not bound by conventional wisdom. Telling me that you've researched 9/11 in one breath and then telling me you've dismissed LC on the production does not inspire confidence in the breadth of your wisdom stretching beyond the codified myth.

big_dave wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

big_dave wrote:The vast majority of "conspiracy" language is loaded with the fear that clever people are organising themselves against you.

And do you think that 'clever people' have never organised themselves against other large groups of people?

A conspiracy theory does not necessarily have to hold that all groups/organisations/secret societies are somehow all in cahoots with each other against us. This for me is too much to think plausible.
A conspiracy just has to hold that powerful groups/organisations/secret societies will sometimes organise against large numbers of other people to maintain/stabilise their power.

If you don't believe that groups/organisation/secret societies ever conspire against you then you are naive in the extreme and are as ahistorical as anyone you might accuse.

Most of you seem to think that no one conspires unless they are exposed as doing so.
This is patently ridiculous.
No one would be exposed of anything ever if there was not investigation.

What.

Is that meant to have a question mark after it or is it meant as an aristocrat in this here England might say 'what'?

Or are you just a cock?

Or any mixture of the above?

clocker bob wrote: Seriously dude, thanks for hunting down my every word looking for your 'big moment' to attack me- it's hilarious. Bitter dork...

You flatter yourself, I've not been paying the slightest bit of attention to your nonsense until your tipically Gringo-centric view of the world cropped up again, this time over South America...

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.

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.

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

oh, and we accept pesos.

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

Otherwise, two points:

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.

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."

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.

If I said, "every time i have seen someone use a ribbon mic on a guitar amp, it made no sound, or it sounded like a fart."

it would be a comparable analogy. the response to this statement is simple, and it is not a debate:

"steve albini got good results. He did this: etc. etc. etc."

my brother made a pretty good point regarding conspiracy theories. something along the lines of:

(forgive my clumsy paraphrasing)

"they are just dreams that the people who don't want to play the game have to believe the cards are already stacked against them so playing is pointless anyway."

something like that.

that being said, unless you were there you don't really know anyways, so you're probably going to choose the story that most directly falls in line with your line of beliefs.

with that said, it's real easy to be paranoid about everything these days. i like to know all the stories and theories. i never believe anyone over the other because i wasn't there and don't really know.

conspiracy theories as an option: not crap.

gio wrote:... a documentary I want to make about conspiracy theorists.

sounds interesting.

Eierdiebe wrote:

gio wrote:... a documentary I want to make about conspiracy theorists.

sounds interesting.

i hope so. i'm sure it's been treated before, but that's ok.

I'm mostly interested in the products (intellectual, material) and ethos of conspiracy theorists, rather than the theories themselves... particularly the willingness to hold stance on rather unpopular opinions in the face of a naysaying majority, with the hope that enough evidence or exposure will come to bear to push it in the conscience of the majority.

Bob, as an example, is completely unfazed by numerous disagreements put his way.. he has a system and a logic and an agenda and a set of reasons to which he adheres. This is certainly interesting. I think it's something about the sense of purpose...

Personally, i have no interest in debating the conspiracies. But I'm certainly interested in finding out more about the positions of those who pursue them in the face of popular opposition.

There are lots of actual conspiracies at work in the world; conspiracy theory undermines actual opposition by creating false and constantly-amended conspiracies out of their own apophenia, rather than trying to actually get to the bottom of the real ones.

I do not believe that a solidly-researched account with evidence proving that JFK was assassinated by the CIA would be able to get a fair hearing, no matter how empirical and solid, because of all the poop that people have been tossing about the subject.

Antero wrote:I do not believe that a solidly-researched account with evidence proving that JFK was assassinated by the CIA would be able to get a fair hearing, no matter how empirical and solid, because of all the poop that people have been tossing about the subject.

What a Grade A pompous ivory tower academic douchebag statement. Yeah, antero, like not a single ounce of your dreamed-about 'solidly-researched' account of the CIA killing JFK wasn't in a conspiracy theorist's book first. You just came to the conclusion that Oswald might have been a patsy all on your own in some pop culture vacuum that you have been living in your entire life- is that your story? So fucking lame. Whatever solidly-researched account of that assassination that you think you could dream up, it would have a bibliography fifty pages long featuring books by Mark Lane and Fletcher Prouty and Jim Garrison and Jim Marrs, and if it didn't have such a bibliography, you'd be a rank plagiarist.

wouldn't be able to get a fair hearing, no matter how empirical and solid, because of all the poop that people have been tossing about the subject.

Any poop on the subject ever tossed by the controlled media there, antero? Simple question, you jerk off- if you think that a solidly-researched account of the CIA killing JFK is needed, then you think that the CIA killed JFK then, right? Well then, if the official history still states that it was Oswald working alone, then who has been lying to you more: the conspiracy theorists, or the protectors of the false history??

Answer that question, and then tell me why you dare to bitch more about conspiracy theorists than about those covering up that crime?