Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:

Antero wrote:No. I don't actually know who killed JFK - CIA? Mafia? Aliens? It doesn't matter.

I'm really starting to wonder about your state of mind. Do you have any idea how often your actions are contradicting your words? "It doesn't matter.", you say- well then, how does Antero demonstrate to the world what he doesn't care about? He finds a thread on conspiracy theories and rants about them. Interesting. To the casual observer, one might think that antero had a corkscrew up his ass about CT's, but no, that can't be right- why would an allegedly sane man like antero type feverish polemics against things that do not matter? My guess? Antero is scared shitless of seeing the missing backbone of the mainstream left exposed every time the only explanation left to explain a crime is the conspiracy theory. It must hit him like the sniper shot from the front to JFK's temple. Antero's so scared shitless of the Pandora's box that will open up if the fossilized left ever starts to see JFK and 9/11 for what they are, he'll say just about fucking *anything* to keep his distance from those naughty conspiracy theories. He'll say a coup de tat by the MIC on a Dallas afternoon "doesn't matter". Antero would never say that the Florida recount of 2000 'didn't matter', because that's a crime against the Presidency that antero is permitted to complain about. Antero knows the length of his leash very well.

I hereby question your literacy.

Let me try this again, break it down for you:

For the purpose of constructing an analogy, it does not make a fucking difference who we hypothetically accuse of JFK's murder. It also does not make a difference what conspiracy theory the analogy addresses. It could be the murder of ODB for all I give a shit.

You really wasted a lot of words right there.

....and you have wasted alot of time....idiot....I guess it doesn't make a difference...who cares..????....right?

Can't we all just get along? Why this meaningless bickering? Surely you fellows have better things to do. We're all just trying to get along in this violent world. Blaming one another only makes it worse.

clocker bob wrote:

Gramsci wrote:

You have nothing to say any more about the discussion you started, do you? You know, the one where you said that there are no conspiracy theories in Chomsky's books, and everything he wrote about Latin America was admitted to by our government and plastered all over the evening news in real time?

Smart move to dump that idiotic misstep of yours into the memory hole, the sooner the better. You're on more solid ground boasting about your work ethic. I can't prove you wrong on that, unlike many other things.

Actually I didn't reply, a: I have been at barbecues outside of my room, and b: because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt over your stupidity for a change.

Why do you have to stoop to putting words in someone's mouth to build an argument. Seriously Bob, if one follows your argument above it looks like boarderline lunacy. You are aware you started the Chomsky line there and that you built everything you are getting heated up about in the above sentences in your head, without a single prompt from me? If you can't see that... well, I really think getting some help would be best.


I've been reading Chomsky for over 15 years, seen him speak three times and meet him once. He's a straight up guy. But Chomsky is mainstream, his book have been readily available on large corporate publishers for 25 years, this is his current publisher:

Henry Holt is one of the oldest publishers in the United States. The company was founded in 1866 by Henry Holt and Frederick Leypoldt, who had emigrated to the United States from his home in Stuttgart eleven years earlier. Holt has always been known for publishing high quality books, including works by such internationally renowned authors as Erich Fromm, Robert Frost, Hermann Hesse, Norman Mailer, Robert Louis Stevenson, Ivan Turgenev and H.G. Wells. Today the publication program focuses on American and international fiction; biography, history and politics; science, psychology and health; and books for children.

I agree with some of his analysis and disagree with some. He a great bullshit detector but not a god and sometimes has made bad judgments.

Gramsci wrote:I've been reading Chomsky for over 15 years, seen him speak three times and meet him once. He's a straight up guy. But Chomsky is mainstream, his book have been readily available on large corporate publishers for 25 years.

Hi, gramsci. I have wikipedia on my computer, too. The Best Buy Geek Squad installed it for me. I know who Noam Chomsky is. Now, getting back to what you wrote:

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".

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

I then asked you this, in reference to what I boldfaced:

clocker bob wrote: 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?

Please don't tell me again that Noam Chomsky writes books. You know and I know that books in general are not a preferred information source for the American people, and that Chomsky books in particular are about as foreign as Antonio Gramsci's books to 99.5% of the american television audience.

Tell me that the explanations in Chomsky's books for the US interventions in Latin America appeared on American television screens as the events unfolded, because that is what you wrote.

gio wrote:Ok bob, you've called me on my bias and lack of research. Fair enough. Time to do some research.

Gio, I didn't fill out an application this morning for the job of driving the short bus to school. If you want to get to school, you better walk or find a different driver. I started thinking hard about 9/11 on 9/11, not on 3/16/07. I'm not retyping my answers out for you, lazy ass. Here's five threads on the board you need to read, from the top:

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... conspiracy

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... conspiracy

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... conspiracy

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... conspiracy

http://www.electrical.com/phpBB2/viewto ... conspiracy

You don't step into the ring with a young Cassius Clay the day after you strap the gloves on, son.

Oh, and watch Loose Change and 9/11 Press For Truth on Google. I will give you a 9/11 proficiency quiz when you're ready. So sorry, but someone like you who spent all day Thursday crying about how he hates conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists is not getting Bob's intensive training until he gives me twenty pushups.

NerblyBear wrote: Blaming one another only makes it worse.

Great, let's just disband the entire criminal justice system and throw open the prison doors. Nerbly Bear says that nobody should ever be blamed for anything- blame is like so living in the past, dude...

Antero wrote:No. I don't actually know who killed JFK - CIA? Mafia? Aliens? It doesn't matter.
Let me try this again, break it down for you:

For the purpose of constructing an analogy, it does not make a fucking difference who we hypothetically accuse of JFK's murder. It also does not make a difference what conspiracy theory the analogy addresses. It could be the murder of ODB for all I give a shit.

Nope, you're dead wrong. Aren't you like a University of Chicago grad? It pains me to walk you through this like you're a grade schooler, but what must be done must be done.

Let's go way back to Andrew L.'s title for this thread: 'Explanation: Conspiracy Theories'. Let's look at that word, explanation. Do you normally find yourself offering explanations for events that did not happen, or have not yet happened? I don't. Explanations follow events. Now, Andrew asked if conspiracy theories were useful as explanations. THERE IS NO FUCKING WAY TO KNOW IF A CONSPIRACY THEORY HAS A PURPOSE UNLESS YOU COMPARE WHAT IS CONTAINED IN THE THEORY TO THE ACTUAL EVENT THAT NEEDS EXPLANATION!!

Now that we're clear on that I hope, we move on. Let's pick among four events: the murders of JFK, MLK, RFK, and the attacks of 9/11. Let's say JFK.

Event: The President was shot dead. Everyone agrees on that.

The government has offered its explanation, the Warren Commission. Okay, the first 'explanation' for JFK's assassination is on the books. Then we decide for ourselves if the explanation is satisfactory.

Clocker Bob thinks that it isn't.

Antero, what do you think? Please state for the class whether you find the official explanation for the assassination to be satisfactory.

If you answer 'yes', then we are done on JFK, as far as you're concerned. If you answer 'no', then we move on. Antero, if you answer 'no', then please tell me what should be done- I'll offer you four choices:

Choice one: The public should rely on the government to repair the history. I, antero, will wait.

Choice two: The structuralist wing of the progressive Left should provide a better explanation for the JFK assassination, and they should be the only investigators allowed to examine the case. I, antero, will either assist them or wait ( and if you say that you will assist them, I will want to know what you have been doing ).

Choice three: I, antero, will encourage any person on Earth to attempt to repair the false history of the JFK assassination, including conspiracy theorists, and I will examine their efforts as they evolve.

Choice four ( the special coward's choice, for antero ): I, antero will refuse to endorse the Warren Commission, but I, antero, will also refuse to agree that the assassination of the President or the false history of the assassination have any political relevance, if doing so means that I am inviting conspiracy theorists into my cloistered world. I, antero, base my reasoning on this: I, antero, would rather live in the illusion of a free country than in the truth of a totalitarian country. I, antero, through years of rigorous Zen mind control, have invented an artificial environment for myself in my own mind, and if I never let anyone trying to bring change pierce my bubble, the piss stops running down my legs.

How's that, you big 'JFK didn't matter' pussy? There is no judging the merits of a conspiracy theory until you compare the contents of the theory to the event it endeavors to explain. Conspiracy theories are reactions to events. They cannot be judged as entities separate from the events that birthed them.

gio wrote:I accept that people have agendas, and they are certainly not always in the open. I am curious about point at which these agendas are defined as "conspiracies," and how different individuals (conspiracy theorists, conspiracy theory detractors) might place these definitions.

Wait a minute...is this all some weird language problem for you, gio? You do understand the very basic definition of 'conspiracy', don't you? Here's the legal definition:

Conspiracy. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.

That covers a lot of ground, doesn't it? Basically, any plan, plot, or act, *and* every conversation about said plan, plot, or act that takes place out of public view and produces results which harm, deceive or defraud innocent individuals is a conspiracy. Frankly, when you answer Earwicker's questions about whether you accept the existence of conspiracies with a bizarre admission that you are not sure what a conspiracy is, you look mega-disingenuous or mega-retarded, take your pick.

gio wrote:I accept that people have agendas, and they are certainly not always in the open.

Try this sentence. Honesty will feel wonderful for you if you haven't tried it in a while:

bob speaking for gio wrote: I accept that people make plans that they don't want me to know about, in order to carry out acts they don't want me to see coming. I call these plans 'conspiracies'.

Stopping the silliness begins with a first step for everyone, gio.

gio wrote:

clocker bob wrote: God, you're goofy. You still have not got your head around the fact that 9/11 truth began on 9/12/01.

Not true. I just said I think Loose Change is bullshit. I said that about four times.

No, you're lying again. You said that you had researched 9/11 Truth, by first lying that you had watched Loose Change, then by claiming that you had researched 9/11 Truth by not watching Loose Change. The very simple point I'm trying to get you to admit to is this: Gio thinks that he can base his decision on the merits of 9/11 conspiracy theories by deciding to not watch a movie about them, and therefore, Gio thinks that the credibility of 9/11 Truth rests on a one hour independently produced documentary constructed on the laptop of a 23 year old New York man.

clocker bob wrote: 9/11 Truth existed years before Loose Change, and it will exist years after Loose Change. Loose Change could evaporate tomorrow and nothing would change.

gio wrote:I was not aware of this untill I went to 911truth.com yesterday.

Gio, the man so fascinated by conspiracy theorists that he proposes to make his own film about them, just found out yesterday that 9/11 Truth wasn't born on the same day as Loose Change. Gio, who spouted hate for the creators of Loose Change and for poor Clocker Bob for a full day, did not know until yesterday that Loose Change was compiled from books and documents that preceded it by three years. Despite this amazingly wide blind spot ( or call it pure ignorance ), gio felt no reluctance to slander Loose Change, based on not seeing it and not knowing what was in it.

Gio, until I hear otherwise, I'm going to assume that you actually went to school with Dylan Avery and he stole your girlfriend or something- that would be a better explanation for your vendetta against LC than what you have now, ignorance of a film and ignorance of the history of 9/11 Truth.

gio wrote:It doesn't change my opinion that Loose Change is bullshit.

Okay, keep riding along on the sniff test there, Sam Spade.

gio wrote:Nice ad homimen conjecture.

I don't normally spell flame, but for you, I'll make an exception, because it's more evidence of your general intellectual lethargy. I'm also going to spare you some future typing: pointing out my insults to me is a waste of your time. I like my insults. I like to insult dumb people and liars. I don't write my posts like there's some invisible referee judging me on my civility. I'm not interested in trying to score points with the forum at large with my conduct. Because you're too lazy to read threads before you jump in, you probably don't know that I've been arguing exactly like this for three years here. Rest assured that it's a gameplan I like.

There are people who are waking up here, there are people who are with me on conspiracy theories here, there are people who are ahead of me here, there are people who are neutral or anti-conspiracy theories here but who understand the value of free speech so they don't try and shout me down. Then there are the scum, the liars, the apologists, the bigots, the cowards, the thought police- those in that category are heading to hell with my dry eyes watching them.

clocker bob wrote:
Your incessant attacks on the LC guys' personalities or motives are a sideshow.

gio wrote:Duh. But it's fun.

clocker bob wrote:They do not mean a flea on the ass of 9/11 truth.

gio wrote:So we agree, then: LC is bullshit.

No, you moron- your attacks on LC ( formulated on your opinion of the filmmakers and not the film ), especially from your position of general and vast ignorance of 9/11 Truth, do not mean a flea on the ass of 9/11 Truth.

Gio, I don't care if Mannie Fresh and the Cash Money Millionaires make a 9/11 Truth documentary, featuring Lil' Wayne as narrator. If there is content within the film that exposes errors, lies, and omissions in the official myth, then I welcome both Lil' Wayne and his grill to the movement.

What I'm starting to suspect about your vendetta against Avery and Bermas is that it has very little to do with 9/11 at all. It has to do with them having a film career and you not having a 1000th of their notoriety. You wish you had thought of what they did first- in fact, you are, you're trying to copy their success! Mr slow on the draw no new ideas Gio now thinks he can make a name for himself by basically jumping on the coattails of the 9/11 Truth movement with his shitty Adam Curtis rip off movie on conspiracy theorists.

Good luck there, you professional jealousy sufferer.