Frank
Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 4:05 pm
"A conspiracy exists when people believe a story ? So say you Mr J. But
your moon tale - and you know I right David - is not a conspiracy at all."
Well Frank, if people can believe that the moon landing in the sixties was an elaborate hoax shot in Hollywood or that Obama is an extreme Muslim, non American who has taken over the US government, then the story of a bomber on the moon seems to me pretty small beer in comparison.
The basic point I am making Frank is ,to repeat once again, one man's well thought out conspiracy theory is another's idiocy. So if I expressed my disbelief at the Obama conspiracy theory to a group of believers , I guess I would be met with exactly the same reaction as the one I experienced from you and Jim Slip e.g. I am not open minded, brainwashed, reluctant to speak out against the US etc etc. etc.
"With tunnel vision. But to say the 360 American architects who have serious concerns about WTC 7. are in the same basket as a man who accepts your moon story is to do those men a grave injustice."
You have obviously misunderstood/misinterpreted my view. A conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. Nowhere do I state that they all have an equal level of credibility. Some appear a lot more credible than others. I suspect that human nature being what it is the definition of a credible conspiracy theory is one that a person talking about it believes to be true. An unbelievable conspiracy theory is one that a person(s) believe is untrue.
"Why, in God`s name, you cannot accept what I said several messages ago - that with conspiracies - which do occur and can be documented - it is best to keep an open mind ? "
To disagree with a conspiracy theory does not necessarily mean that someone has not got an open mind. To have an open mind is to look at an issue and the evidence and make a decision about it. I disagree with the CIA inspired destruction of the Twin Towers. I think it is complete nonsense for the reasons I have already given.
A closed, narrow mind is one in which when a poster gets a detailed response from the likes of Sam Slater, questioning their views, the poster completely ignores Sam and will only reply in detail to people who agree with them.
"What is starting to bother me rather more is that a) maybe you are a
fundamentalist believer in Big Govt and the glorious USA never wrong (and
I took you for a man with more sense) or b) your ego prevents you from
accepting a different point of view (which is what your eminence grise, Mr
Slip, constantly witters on about) ?"
You are getting bothered over nothing Frank. This is a pathetic argument. I disagree with your conspiracy theory about the Twin Towers, therefore I am a fundamentalist believer in Big Government and the glorious USA.
As for accepting a different point of view, as I have previously stated, people can believe what they want that does not mean that I have to "accept" their views or agree with them.
"So, David, lets clear this up ? Do you or do you not believe in any
conspiracies of the past fifty years ? If so, what ?"
Well Frank, to be honest I cannot be arsed to go through the last 50 years of history but there definitely appears to have been a conspiracy in the Blair government to massage/fabricate the evidence re. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Hope this clears things up.
D
your moon tale - and you know I right David - is not a conspiracy at all."
Well Frank, if people can believe that the moon landing in the sixties was an elaborate hoax shot in Hollywood or that Obama is an extreme Muslim, non American who has taken over the US government, then the story of a bomber on the moon seems to me pretty small beer in comparison.
The basic point I am making Frank is ,to repeat once again, one man's well thought out conspiracy theory is another's idiocy. So if I expressed my disbelief at the Obama conspiracy theory to a group of believers , I guess I would be met with exactly the same reaction as the one I experienced from you and Jim Slip e.g. I am not open minded, brainwashed, reluctant to speak out against the US etc etc. etc.
"With tunnel vision. But to say the 360 American architects who have serious concerns about WTC 7. are in the same basket as a man who accepts your moon story is to do those men a grave injustice."
You have obviously misunderstood/misinterpreted my view. A conspiracy theory is a conspiracy theory. Nowhere do I state that they all have an equal level of credibility. Some appear a lot more credible than others. I suspect that human nature being what it is the definition of a credible conspiracy theory is one that a person talking about it believes to be true. An unbelievable conspiracy theory is one that a person(s) believe is untrue.
"Why, in God`s name, you cannot accept what I said several messages ago - that with conspiracies - which do occur and can be documented - it is best to keep an open mind ? "
To disagree with a conspiracy theory does not necessarily mean that someone has not got an open mind. To have an open mind is to look at an issue and the evidence and make a decision about it. I disagree with the CIA inspired destruction of the Twin Towers. I think it is complete nonsense for the reasons I have already given.
A closed, narrow mind is one in which when a poster gets a detailed response from the likes of Sam Slater, questioning their views, the poster completely ignores Sam and will only reply in detail to people who agree with them.
"What is starting to bother me rather more is that a) maybe you are a
fundamentalist believer in Big Govt and the glorious USA never wrong (and
I took you for a man with more sense) or b) your ego prevents you from
accepting a different point of view (which is what your eminence grise, Mr
Slip, constantly witters on about) ?"
You are getting bothered over nothing Frank. This is a pathetic argument. I disagree with your conspiracy theory about the Twin Towers, therefore I am a fundamentalist believer in Big Government and the glorious USA.
As for accepting a different point of view, as I have previously stated, people can believe what they want that does not mean that I have to "accept" their views or agree with them.
"So, David, lets clear this up ? Do you or do you not believe in any
conspiracies of the past fifty years ? If so, what ?"
Well Frank, to be honest I cannot be arsed to go through the last 50 years of history but there definitely appears to have been a conspiracy in the Blair government to massage/fabricate the evidence re. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Hope this clears things up.
D