| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| And like I say, I don't even see that MOS was calling for banning in his post. |
Absolutely, I never called for banning anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| A mod I was chatting with recently - not on this forum - told me a large number of public issue discussion boards he knows about are regularly visited by "conspiracy buffs" (his words) nowadays. He's not quite sure how to respond to them...he said as long as they don't resort to spamming or other rule-breaking, most mods generally leave them alone. |
Here we go again with MOS taking the position of the sensible one. " A mod I was chatting with recently." Sickening. Very sickening.
Not quite sure how to respond? MOS has apparently not heard of Freedom of Speech. I guess if it was up to him , that right would be suspended.
Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries.
Continue to believe in your magical bullets and the dignity of mainstream media , MOS.
We know you do this because you think it the right thing to do, so we forgive you. |
He really seems to have a hard-on for me, doesn't he. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| You realize a conspiracy is when two or more people plan a crime, right...? |
No. In American jurisprudence, "conspiracy" contains more elements than that. Besides, criminal conspiracy is one thing. Oliver-Stone-style conspiracy-theory fantasizing is another matter entirely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He really seems to have a hard-on for me, doesn't he. |
Yes, you are definitely on his list, as am I. My question: Does he get harder for you or me?  One of life's little imponderables. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| He really seems to have a hard-on for me, doesn't he. |
Yes, you are definitely on his list, as am I. |
You, me and Gopher. Man...
| Quote: |
| My question: Does he get harder for you or me? One of life's little imponderables. |
I SO do not want to go there.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| loose_ends wrote: |
| You realize a conspiracy is when two or more people plan a crime, right...? |
No. In American jurisprudence, "conspiracy" contains more elements than that. Besides, criminal conspiracy is one thing. Oliver-Stone-style conspiracy-theory fantasizing is another matter entirely. |
No one here is depending on Oliver Stone as their source of information. His movies, however, do raise questions that anyone with a brain would investigate.
Guess that excludes you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 12:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Oliver-Stone-style conspiracy-theory fantasizing |
does NOT equal
| Quote: |
| depending on Oliver Stone as their source of information |
If you cannot read, digest and respond to a simple statement like Gopher's, how can anyone trust you to read, understand and report what someone in a book wrote? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ...careful, now, Ya-ta Boy...we wouldn't want to be accused of all ganging up on him, even if he did call all of us who disagree with him douchebags... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's gonna be a great year on the forum! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| ...careful, now, Ya-ta Boy...we wouldn't want to be accused of all ganging up on him, even if he did call all of us who disagree with him douchebags... |
No, another poster did. Get your facts straight.
| loose_ends wrote: |
I'm going to have to back up Regicide on this one.
MOS is a douche. And anyone that has tried to side with him on this thread are also douches.
for the sake of this thread, a douche is someone who disregards logic in an attempt to explain a weak theory. it is also used to represent people that jump on the bandwagon. |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Oliver-Stone-style conspiracy-theory fantasizing |
does NOT equal
| Quote: |
| depending on Oliver Stone as their source of information |
If you cannot read, digest and respond to a simple statement like Gopher's, how can anyone trust you to read, understand and report what someone in a book wrote? |
Last edited by regicide on Mon Dec 31, 2007 3:34 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| regicide wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| ...careful, now, Ya-ta Boy...we wouldn't want to be accused of all ganging up on him, even if he did call all of us who disagree with him douchebags... |
No, another poster did. Get your facts straight.
| loose_ends wrote: |
I'm going to have to back up Regicide on this one.
MOS is a douche. And anyone that has tried to side with him on this thread are also douche. |
|
| bull droppings. regicide damn well knows he wrote: |
I'm going to have to back up IGTG on this one.
MOS is a douche. And anyone that has tried to side with him on this thread are also douche. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bull droppings. regicide damn well knows he wrote: |
I'm going to have to back up IGTG on this one.
MOS is a douche. And anyone that has tried to side with him on this thread are also douche. |
"And by their fruits ye shall know them ..."
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil
2. Become incredulous and indignant
3. Create rumor mongers
4. Use a straw man
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
6. Hit and Run
7. Question motives
8. Invoke authority
9. Play Dumb
10. Associate opponent charges with old news
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions
12. Enigmas have no solution
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic
14. Demand complete solutions
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses
17. Change the subject
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad
19. Ignore facts, demand impossible proofs
20. False evidence
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor
22. Manufacture a new truth
23. Create bigger distractions
24. Silence critics
25. Vanish
Eight Traits of The Disinformationalist
1. Avoidance
2. Selectivity
3. Coincidental
4. Teamwork
5. Anti-conspiratorial
6. Artificial Emotions
7. Inconsistent
8. Newly Discovered: Time Constant
http://www.ominous-valve.com/blog/25ways.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| bull droppings. regicide damn well knows he wrote: |
I'm going to have to back up IGTG on this one.
MOS is a douche. And anyone that has tried to side with him on this thread are also douche. |
"And by their fruits ye shall know them ..."
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling, ridicule
6 |
Well then according to rule number 5 that's what your side is doing and therefore is spreading misinformation.
Hoist by your own petard. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loose_ends
Joined: 23 Jul 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Verified conspiracies
| Quote: |
On some occasions particular conspiracy allegations turn out to be readily verifiable, as in the French government's attempted cover-up following Emile Zola's accusations in the Dreyfus Affair, or in the efforts by the Tsar's secret police to foment anti-Semitism by presenting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as an authentic text.[28]
Some argue that the reality of such conspiracies should caution against any casual dismissal of conspiracy theory. Many "conspiracy theory" authors and publishers, such as Robert Anton Wilson and Disinfo, use proven conspiracies as evidence of what a secret plot can accomplish. In doing so, they attempt to rebut the assumption that conspiracies don't exist, or that any "conspiracy theory" is necessarily false. A number of true or possibly true conspiracies are cited in making this case; the Mafia, the Business Plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the MKULTRA mind control program, various CIA involvements in overseas coups d'�tat, Operation Northwoods, the 1991 Testimony of Nayirah before the US Congress to rally the support of the US public to launch the Gulf War, the Tuskegee Study of Untreated Syphilis in the Negro Male, the General Motors streetcar conspiracy, the plot by the British Secret Service to destabilize Prime Minister Harold Wilson and the Pearl Harbor advance-knowledge debate, among others.[citation needed]
The argument is often advanced that the non-existence of any given conspiracy is shown by the lack of leakers or whistle blowers. Given the success of the British government in getting thousands of people to keep the ULTRA secret -- and thereby ensuring that no reliable history of World War II could be published until the 1970s -- it is apparent that this is not necessarily a reliable indicator. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| caution against any casual dismissal of conspiracy theory |
The key word in that is 'casual'.
The existence of real conspiracies in some situations in no way lends credence to the existence of a conspiracy in any other situation. Each situation must be dealt with on its own terms. Probably more importantly, how likely is the truth of the theory being proposed?
All the choices listed in the OP come from 'real' conspiracy theories. I didn't make any up, exaggerate or distort a single one. By claiming 9/11 was an inside job, you entered the same territory as those conspiracies, yet you have said nothing to dissociate yourself from them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
