To much Conspirecy bad thing???

mugs1

bonkey wrote: »

Please read the charter. Pay attention to the bit which says :

Please don't use sweeping generalisations which indirectly attack or belittle other posters here.

I don't care one whit that your comment wasn't aimed at anyone "in particular". You made your comments about some posters, which means you clearly feel that some poster or posters here fir the bill. Not naming them doesn't make your insults acceptable.

Please also pay attention to the bit which says :

Don't argue with moderator decisions in-thread

hmm... there's no arguement here only healthy discussion, any chance you could repost this without your admin hat on?

that way I can respond in thread without fear of been banned!!

This is a public discussion forum after all is it not?

mugs1

AlcoholicA wrote: »

I think what OP means is there sometimes seems to a line between conspiracy theories and paranoia....

Not really paranoid, more that their is so much information out there that its far to easy to get bogged down in it and lose perspective!

mugs1

EnterNow wrote: »

I guess it's because so many stories are open to personal viewpoint/beliefs. You can basically create a conspiracy around a bottle of milk if you wish,

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/milk-we-drink-is-poison-ngo/619725/0

Who wants to run with this one!!!

uprising2

Was going to put this in the Bill Gates wants 50 trillion dead thread, but could be good here.

Citizens for Truth
:eek::eek::eek::eek:Who killed Bill Gates?:eek::eek::eek::eek:
If you thought you knew the answer to that question, we're glad you're here. Most Americans, depending on accounts reported in the mainstream media, believe that the assassination of Bill Gates has been solved to a certainty. Lone assassin, story finished, case closed.
But Citizens for Truth believes that the real story behind the assassination and aftermath has yet to be fully determined

http://www.citizensfortruth.org/

Yitzhak Rabin

uprising2 wrote: »

Was going to put this in the Bill Gates wants 50 trillion dead thread, but could be good here.

Citizens for Truth
:eek::eek::eek::eek:Who killed Bill Gates?:eek::eek::eek::eek:
If you thought you knew the answer to that question, we're glad you're here. Most Americans, depending on accounts reported in the mainstream media, believe that the assassination of Bill Gates has been solved to a certainty. Lone assassin, story finished, case closed.
But Citizens for Truth believes that the real story behind the assassination and aftermath has yet to be fully determined

http://www.citizensfortruth.org/

but....Bill Gates is alive?

uprising2

yekahs wrote: »

but....Bill Gates is alive?

Not any more!, he died in 1999.

Brown Bomber

uprising2 wrote: »

Not any more!, he died in 1999.

Thats what happens when you **** with George Clooney and his illuminati buddies.

mysterious

To much of anything is a bad thing, what a pointless thread that will "again" lead to silly arguments. How am I not surprised.:rolleyes:

mugs1

mysterious wrote: »

To much of anything is a bad thing, what a pointless thread that will "again" lead to silly arguments. How am I not surprised.:rolleyes:

Ha lol... What a pointless statment again!!!,what would you prefer, that we all come on here and just tell each other how clever we are, and how stupid all the sheeple are??

Brown Bomber

mugs1 wrote: »

Ha lol... What a pointless statment again!!!,what would you prefer, that we all come on here and just tell each other how clever we are, and how stupid all the sheeple are??

People need to get over the whole "sheeple" thing. Unless you are in a position of power we are all part of the same herd; just some of us are aware of that fact is all.

--Kaiser--

From my perusals of this forum it seems that there are only a handful of frequent posters, all of whom do seem to slap each other on the back and agree with each others theories and give the old :rolleyes: to the 'sheep' who don't agree with them. The fact that there is usually an absence of evidence for the theories ( and sometimes, in the case of moon landings, a great deal of evidence to the contrary) doesn't seem to impact the fervent belief held by the hardcore CTers.

It seems to me that a lot of these theories are reminiscent of Schizophreniform persecutary delusions, backed up by disorded thinking. Having some (albeit limited) experience of people with such disorders I can see similarities with some of the ideas that arise with such conditions and with some of the more far fetched conspiracy theories.

humanji

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

From my perusals of this forum it seems that there are only a handful of frequent posters, all of whom do seem to slap each other on the back and agree with each others theories and give the old :rolleyes: to the 'sheep' who don't agree with them. The fact that there is usually an absence of evidence for the theories ( and sometimes, in the case of moon landings, a great deal of evidence to the contrary) doesn't seem to impact the fervent belief held by the hardcore CTers.

It seems to me that a lot of these theories are reminiscent of Schizophreniform persecutary delusions, backed up by disorded thinking. Having some (albeit limited) experience of people with such disorders I can see similarities with some of the ideas that arise with such conditions and with some of the more far fetched conspiracy theories.

Or maybe there are too many questions left unanswered about the official stories and people want to find out what the answers are before coming to a conclusion?

--Kaiser--

humanji wrote: »

Or maybe there are too many questions left unanswered about the official stories and people want to find out what the answers are before coming to a conclusion?

Questioning things is fine, it's a sign of an open mind, but too many posters here seem to blindly accept things, like the below post 'I think this forum should be renamed Truth Theories'......based on a youtube clip???

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055954190

mugs1

humanji wrote: »

Or maybe there are too many questions left unanswered about the official stories and people want to find out what the answers are before coming to a conclusion?

Fair enough but making up answers to fit a theory because they want it to be true, or jumping to conclusions, based on at best flimsy evidence, at worst out right lies, is counter productive!

It just muddy's the water and makes more it difficult to get to any truth that might actually be there to find.

mysterious

I told you this thread was getting nowhere.

--Kaiser--

mysterious wrote: »

I told you this thread was getting nowhere.

You're missing a :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

From my perusals of this forum it seems that there are only a handful of frequent posters, all of whom do seem to slap each other on the back and agree with each others theories and give the old :rolleyes: to the 'sheep' who don't agree with them. The fact that there is usually an absence of evidence for the theories ( and sometimes, in the case of moon landings, a great deal of evidence to the contrary) doesn't seem to impact the fervent belief held by the hardcore CTers. .

That's nice

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

It seems to me that a lot of these theories are reminiscent of Schizophreniform persecutary delusions, backed up by disorded thinking. Having some (albeit limited) experience of people with such disorders I can see similarities with some of the ideas that arise with such conditions and with some of the more far fetched conspiracy theories .

That's nice too

pschyology forum is here: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=604

Have fun!

Oh and a word to the wise you probably won't be able to insult the users in that forum like you did here with your most excellent response.

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You're missing a :rolleyes:

Well he was proven correct, by you as it happens.

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's nice
Oh and a word to the wise you probably won't be able to insult the users in that forum like you did here with your most excellent response.

Believe it or not I wasn't trying to insult posters here, I was expecting a reasoned debate but so far none has been forthcoming

Brown Bomber

Well you reap what you sow my friend.

there are only a handful of frequent posters, all of whom do seem to slap each other on the back and agree with each others theories

It seems to me that a lot of these theories are reminiscent of Schizophreniform persecutary delusions, backed up by disorded thinking

What did you expect a kiss on the cheek, if you weren't trolling you were completely lacking in any tact. You've directly accused the majority CT posters of having a mental illness.

robtri

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Believe it or not I wasn't trying to insult posters here, I was expecting a reasoned debate but so far none has been forthcoming

its the CT forum, reasoned debate is not the norm here

--Kaiser--

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What did you expect a kiss on the cheek, if you weren't trolling you were completely lacking in any tact. You've directly accused the majority CT posters of having a mental illness.

Nice selective editing, I stated from my persuals it seems.....all of whom do seem...

My point being that it seems in this forum you are either a CTer and you believe this stuff (usually without hard evidence) or you're a non-believer and your opinion is not worth humouring, reeks of fanaticism to be honest.

humanji

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well you reap what you sow my friend.





What did you expect a kiss on the cheek, if you weren't trolling you were completely lacking in any tact. You've directly accused the majority CT posters of having a mental illness.

Actually, no he hasn't. He refered to the theories, not the users.

Now, everyone please stick to the topic.

mugs1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well he was proven correct, by you as it happens.

How exactly??

Brown Bomber

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

Nice selective editing, I stated from my persuals it seems.....all of whom do seem...

My point being that it seems in this forum you are either a CTer and you believe this stuff (usually without hard evidence) or you're a non-believer and your opinion is not worth humouring, reeks of fanaticism to be honest.

Unfortunately for you you happen to be talking through your arse.

A single example that you haven't noticed in your perusing :rolleyes: and I choose this because it was the only example you actually gave is the moon llanding hoax or not thread. You must have noticed in your perusing that I am a regular user here, I don't for one believe the moon landing was faked. So there you've fallen flat on your face, you must peruse harder.

So where are we then? You feel justified in criticising a person for rejecting the opinions of others yet here you are criticising people for reaching alternative conclusions to you. Does the irony escape you? You criticise for people drawing conclusions based on little or no evidence yet here you are making broad sweeping statement without backing up anything you have said. Again ironic or hypocritical, take your pick.

Finally, and most importantly please explain how a theory can have a psychotic illness.

Brown Bomber

mugs1 wrote: »

How exactly??

well he was referring to this post.

mysterious wrote: »

To much of anything is a bad thing, what a pointless thread that will "again" lead to silly arguments. How am I not surprised.:rolleyes:

It will lead to "silly arguments" because it is an open invitation for <insert your own word of choice here> to come and take pot-shots at the users of this forum.

It is an accident waiting to happen. There is nothing forum related to discuss here. Skeptic forum or the pschyology forum or I'd suggest personal issues with a thread "Dear Boards, I don't like it when people don't agree with me, it makes me want to lash out at them so I can feel superior. Please help..."

mugs1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It will lead to "silly arguments" because it is an open invitation for <insert your own word of choice here> to come and take pot-shots at the users of this forum. ..."

S what are you trying to say here......it's a Sceptics Conspirecey to infiltrate the Conspirecey Forum...

It's called debate and accountability for what is presented as fact when it clearly isn't.. you should have enough confidence in your position to be able to debate the points with anyone who questions it..

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is nothing forum related to discuss here..."

Awww what ya gonna do? take your ball and go home!

I believe it is forum related, and extremely relevant, and have yet to be convinced otherwise!!

Oh! and for the record, Im not a sceptic nor have i ever posted on any sceptics forum.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'd suggest personal issues with a thread "Dear Boards, I don't like it when people don't agree with me, it makes me want to lash out at them so I can feel superior. Please help..."

You pretty much described your attitude right there!

Brown Bomber

mugs1 wrote: »

S what are you trying to say here......it's a Sceptics Conspirecey to infiltrate the Conspirecey Forum...

Hardly. Where did you get that impression from?

This is what I said.

It will lead to "silly arguments" because it is an open invitation for <insert your own word of choice here> to come and take pot-shots at the users of this forum. ..."

Read it again. It's quite clear. Here is an online translator if that helps
http://www.google.se/search?q=google+translate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

mugs1 wrote: »

It's called debate

What is?

Seriously, how can you honestly try and pass off as debate opening a thread on a public forum questioning the mentality of the users? and then that is to be the topic of your "debate" ffs

some posters seem to be so wraped up in the conspirecy bubble that they have abandoned any sense of logic and reason, almost has a religous/fanatical feel to it with no checks and balances.

Not realizing that you have created your own little matrix, and your mind has become just as closed if not more so then the Sheeple

It's like introducing yourself to someone for the first time with

"go **** yourself" and then wonder why they won't talk to you...

mugs1 wrote: »

and accountability for what is presented as fact when it clearly isn't..

You've lost me. You have presented no facts at all. Just crass, and largely innacurate generalisations.

mugs1 wrote: »

you should have enough confidence in your position to be able to debate the points with anyone who questions it..

And you are falsely assuming I can't/ don't why? What position is that you have? "I'm superior...blah..blah...blah, be like me...blah..blah...blah" Sorry if I don't go along with that. In fact you've given absolutely no reason to. You've not talked about anything other than the users of this forum in this thread. That is not an argument. The tragedy of it all is that your ideas are not completely without merit imo, but it is your stance that gets in the way of actual debate unfortunately.

mugs1 wrote: »

Awww what ya gonna do? take your ball and go home!

Yeah, insinuate I am being childish by being childish yourself, that'll work.

mugs1 wrote: »

I believe it is forum related, and extremely relevant, and have yet to be convinced otherwise!!

But here the burden of proof is on you to offer an argument of why the thread is relevant to this forum.

mugs1 wrote: »

Oh! and for the record, Im not a sceptic nor have i ever posted on any sceptics forum.

You pretty much described your attitude right there!

Your entitled to your opinion, but my opinion on this is that inflammatory and essential wrong to discuss the mental condition of users of a forum in a public environment.

mugs1

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Hardly. Where did you get that impression from?

This is what I said.



Read it again. It's quite clear. Here is an online translator if that helps
http://www.google.se/search?q=google+translate&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

What is?

Seriously, how can you honestly try and pass off as debate opening a thread on a public forum questioning the mentality of the users? and then that is to be the topic of your "debate" ffs





It's like introducing yourself to someone for the first time with

"go **** yourself" and then wonder why they won't talk to you...



You've lost me. You have presented no facts at all. Just crass, and largely innacurate generalisations.


And you are falsely assuming I can't/ don't why? What position is that you have? "I'm superior...blah..blah...blah, be like me...blah..blah...blah" Sorry if I don't go along with that. In fact you've given absolutely no reason to. You've not talked about anything other than the users of this forum in this thread. That is not an argument. The tragedy of it all is that your ideas are not completely without merit imo, but it is your stance that gets in the way of actual debate unfortunately.


Yeah, insinuate I am being childish by being childish yourself, that'll work.


But here the burden of proof is on you to offer an argument of why the thread is relevant to this forum.



Your entitled to your opinion, but my opinion on this is that inflammatory and essential wrong to discuss the mental condition of users of a forum in a public environment.

Yeah you've been trying your best to derail this thread, and all your doing is confirming what i suspected when I started it, effectivley validating the thread!!

If my OP was offensive to anyone that wasn't my intention and I apologise, But stand by it 100 percent,

You are the only poster iv'e seen using term Mental illness by the way.. and you throw it around abit to freely for my likeing.

Why don't you try arguing the actuall points of the thread, instead of getting your nickers in a twist. or are you so wrapped up in your bubble your incapable of it.

Brown Bomber

mugs1 wrote: »

Yeah you've been trying your best to derail this thread, and all your doing is confirming what i suspected when I started it, effectivley validating the thread!!

If my OP was offensive to anyone that wasn't my intention and I apologise, But stand by it 100 percent,

You are the only poster iv'e seen using term Mental illness by the way.. and you throw it around abit to freely for my likeing.

Why don't you try arguing the actuall points of the thread, instead of getting your nickers in a twist. or are you so wrapped up in your bubble your incapable of it.

OK. Lets start again and try to be civil to each other we have no real reason to fall out. Agreed?

To clear up the mental illness thing. This was from Kaiser's post here.

It seems to me that a lot of these theories are reminiscent of Schizophreniform persecutary delusions, backed up by disorded thinking. Having some (albeit limited) experience of people with such disorders I can see similarities with some of the ideas that arise with such conditions and with some of the more far fetched conspiracy theories.

You even thanked the post ffs. Now that you are aware I suggest you remove your thanks if you disagree with the message of this post.

For what its worth I have no intention of derailing your or anyone e'lse's thread. But you'll have to clarify again what it is you want to talk about and I'll do my best with a response.