He's not trolling with the AIDs denialist stuff too then, d'you not think?
I thought that was all part of exactly the same 'pick a contrarian position for effect' stuff
'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
- Status
He's not trolling with the AIDs denialist stuff too then, d'you not think?
I thought that was all part of exactly the same 'pick a contrarian position for effect' stuff
xes
F.O.A.D
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
This ^^ is fair comment, I was just about to point out that trev is only a conspiracy theorist as far as Diana is concerned.
toblerone3
Grrrrr
I'm sure somebody's asked this before but what's the collective noun for a group of conspiracy theorists?
i dunno what the other poster said about AIDS but if it was that it was created in a lab in the US by the CIA then you could add that to my list cos it makes a lot more sense than green monkeys spreading it
xes
F.O.A.D
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
In that case I withdraw my pervious post.
I think there are many more who are suspicious of various things or interested, but can't stand the lynch mob mentality on urban75 when it comes to challenging material of this nature. I've certainly had many pms saying as such over the years.
There's been quite a few others who have been banned too, which is a shame I think.
good point. It's like being in the dodgy boozers i go to and shouting "Actually i think the media are lying about immigration"
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
There are plenty of people that are suspicious of allsorts of things on here, including the majority that challenge you.
The different is they do not tend to constantly post the same old bonkers theories, whilst constantly ignoring the evidence from reliable sources and basic facts that debunk those theories.
Many PMs of support – lol.
Yep. Trevhagl. I'm notat you. Just Loon-haters...
there may well be some loons out there but most of the people i've seen ganged up on and ridiculed are putting forward perfectly likely scenarios.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
If you are unfamiliar with the topic manner is it not possible you're mistaken about how possible it is? Thus to you it might appear that it is perfectly likely but to others it is obvious that it isn't.
That would merit an explanation of why it's not possible, but if the person expounding the flawed theory has been told that it's ludicrous in the past and is continuing to refuse to learn or accept that they are mistaken then the point of treating it like a sensible question/theory starts to evaporate.
Then you have Jazzz who doesn't believe in science unless it agrees with him.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Examples?
Idris2002
canadian girlfriend
A 'loonery', perhaps?
Diana being murdered! I thought we'd done that though?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
That's not an example is it
That's not an example is it
depends how much faith you have in the media & establishment. I personally think they might LIE to us.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
You claimed Diana's bodyguard was paid off by the security services, when it shown to you that Al Fayed's lawyer admitted that this claim wasn't substantiated, you changed your tune and claimed Paul Henri was the one paid off.
Idiotic nonsense.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
No, you're not listening. That's not an example, that's vaguely waving your hand in the direction of several examples. Pick one of them.
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
They aren't monotonically institutes. Most of the news agencies need freelancers, to suggest all these people are in on it is idiotic.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Examples?[/QUOTE]
You think you were 'putting forward perfectly likely scenarios', despite having admitted that you hadn't actually read the coverage of the inquest, which had dealt with those scenarios - lol.
You were putting forward idiotic claims, that were suitably challenged by others, using facts and including the use of the actual inquest evidence - that's not 'ganging-up', that's reasoned debate.
You think you were 'putting forward perfectly likely scenarios', despite having admitted that you hadn't actually read the coverage of the inquest, which had dealt with those scenarios - lol.
You were putting forward idiotic claims, that were suitably challenged by others, using facts and including the use of the actual inquest evidence - that's not 'ganging-up', that's reasoned debate.
this is going round in circles. Are you saying that as i didn't have personal PROOF that Michael Jackson was a paedophile, then he DEFINATELY WASN'T! This is the logic you're using, and you are forgetting just how powerful the establishment are. Look at David Kelly.
Aye to that.
I don't usually have much time for Peter Hitchens, but he has a good blast against the "conspiracy theory" denialists in his recent book:
"by using this silly and misleading term they are blinding themselves to a real process, which takes place often in the modern world. Those who choose to believe that in modern London nobody has confidential discussions to obtain a co-ordinated purpose, in the hope that outsiders are unaware of this collusion, are voluntarily depriving themselves of important knowledge. They are also exposing their naivety about politics and the media."
And, I would add, a forteriori about "science."
You what?
Loonspud, nutbobbin, bonkersman. The media lie to us? Scientists mislead the public? Scientists, who everybody knows are completely objective and disinterested in all their endeavors?
Hahahahahaha. Ban this fool immediately please.
very good quote, something the others on here should bear in mind.
Can anyone translate this into human please?
- Status
Similar threads
