'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[8den]

bad luck for the establishment eh? One of the only two witnesses that could actually see the crash happens to be a 'conspiraloon' !!! By that odds does that mean half of France are?

You really are a simpleton. There was over a dozen eyewitnesses in and around the tunnel that night. Amazingly you fixate on the one, who supports your claim, and ignore the others. It's called "confirmation of bias" you complete little fucktard. You want there to be a conspiracy, so you choose the eyewitness that supports your claim. A eyewitness who's opinion isn't coberated by other eye witness accounts, and who happens to have a big old conspiracy theory book ready to flog at the time to cash in the controversy.

But you're too busy being Al Fayed's little bitch boy to notice this.

 

[claphamboy]

Do you accept that? My impression was that you were denying it.

You know full well that it was your claim of a media conspiracy that I was disagreeing with.

he certainly baffled me....

The evidence would suggest that isn't difficult.

 

[8den]

ok then smartarse, tell us what really happened with the case. Maybe you could name the murderers if they weren't the ones accused? Seeing as you know the Diana crash was an accident, i'm sure you can tell us who killed Lawrence?

Look Cretin. Could you just stick to one non sequitur at time, when you get exposed as being fucking clueless about Diana, so start ranting about David Kelly, or Steven Lawrence.

The Daily Mail happily named the killers, but you know, and the only reason they've not tried again, is because of double jeopardy, a legal concept that the criminal justice act of 2003 sought to fix. The Steven Lawerence murder trial is considered to be a major influence to this act.

Because you'd know all this, Nah, much better to call everyone who disagrees with you an "establishment whore" While you parrot the idiotic conspiracy theories of a billionaire, you fucking hypocritical little bitch boy.

 

[phildwyer]

You know full well that it was your claim of a media conspiracy that I was disagreeing with.

I didn't know that, no.

And I've no idea why, since you now accept that there was a government conspiracy, you find it implausible that the media was involved as well.

Care to explain?

 

[8den]

I didn't know that, no.

And I've no idea why, since you now accept that there was a government conspiracy, you find it implausible that the media was involved as well.

Care to explain?

Can you explain why you think they were involved?

 

[ViolentPanda]

i agree with most of that, but Ronson's book WAS his own work. It was he who went to the remote woodland to watch the procession of tossers go to the bildeberg meeting and the book actually starts investigating loons and disbelieving them until he investigates further

Well, actually it was Ronson and a mad Yank, and it was the mad Yank who pointed out most of the people and gave Ronson the run-down on Bilderberg. This was on his little tv series (a couple of years before the book) where he also met "Sheikh" Omar Bakri and assorted other fruit-cakes.

 

[phildwyer]

Can you explain why you think they were involved?

Sure.

Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos. They went to school and uni together. They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university. Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.

 

[8den]

Sure.

Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos. They went to school and uni together. They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university. Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.

Oh do fuck off like a good chap, if they're all best chums with the old school ties, why the fuck did fleet street and the Mail, put in the boot to everyone in the expenses scandal? Or Cash for Honours? Mark Oaten? The Jo "good day to bury bad news" Moore's 911 e-mail? Peter Hain's resignation? David Kelly?

You're talking fucking nonsense Phil.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university

Genius.

 

[phildwyer]

Genius.

So I'm told.

 

[phildwyer]

Oh do fuck off like a good chap, if they're all best chums with the old school ties, why the fuck did fleet street and the Mail, put in the boot to everyone in the expenses scandal? Or Cash for Honours? Mark Oaten? The Jo "good day to bury bad news" Moore's 911 e-mail? Peter Hain's resignation? David Kelly?

They're not the same class. As a foreigner you can't be expected to understand.

 

[8den]

They're not the same class. As a foreigner you can't be expected to understand.

As a foreigner who's worked in 3 or 4 news rooms in this country, I can confidentially tell you, you're talking fucking bollocks.

 

[phildwyer]

As a foreigner who's worked in 3 or 4 news rooms in this country, I can confidentially tell you, you're talking fucking bollocks.

Sorry, I meant to say "as a twat you can't be expected to understand."

 

[8den]

Sorry, I meant to say "as a twat you can't be expected to understand."

I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters.

So we'll go ahead and add, racist, to the list of things Phil is*

So I may be a foreign twat, but, I'm a foreign twat who got a much greater working understanding how UK newsrooms work, than you Phil.

*List stands at: unfunny, liar, ignorant, immensely punchable, bigot, and clueless asshole"

 

[phildwyer]

I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters.

You've certainly caught me out there!

You're not really so stupid after all are you?

[Can you fucking believe this guy?]

 

[8den]

You've certainly caught me out there!

You're not really so stupid after all are you?

[Can you fucking believe this guy?]

I'll just go ahead and add "dimwit" and "very easy to troll", to the list then Phil.

 

[claphamboy]

Sure.

Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos. They went to school and uni together. They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university. Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.

Which would explain why a number of newspapers were against the war, and several, including The Times & The Mail, whilst supporting the war, also published several articles questioning the government's motives, agenda and evidence.

 

[free spirit]

Sure.

Fleet St.'s editors and columnists are from the same class as the politicos. They went to school and uni together. They socialize together all the time and they co-ordinate their objectives together--yes I know this for a fact, I'm not from the same class or school, but I am from the same university. Anyone who suggests that they just happened to spout exactly the same lies by chance is a naive fool.

er yes, because journalists, columnists and yes even editors are really responsible for setting the overall editorial policy of the papers they work for on the big stuff.

I'm sure the express's obsession with diana's all down to the journalists having gone to the same school as al fayed... erm, yes, that's obviously it.

btw, when doing DIY do you scream in pain and wave your hand around every time you accidentally hit a nail on the head with the hammer, and stare at the nail wondering why it's not going in when you're successfully hammering your thumb?

 

[Jazzz]

Hang on a sec . . .

There were no secret WMDs because we tried to find evidence and couldn't.

But there was a secret 9/11 conspiracy because we tried to find evidence . . .

Absolutely, in both cases, there is crucial evidence missing.

 

[butchersapron]

Absolutely, in both cases, there is crucial evidence missing.

of what?

 

[editor]

Absolutely, in both cases, there is crucial evidence missing.

There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts - unless they're talking about their own pet theories where usually no evidence is required at all - or, at best, some rambling DVD flogging charlatan with no relevant qualifications.

 

[phildwyer]

There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts - unless they're talking about their own pet theories where usually no evidence is required at all - or, at best, some rambling DVD flogging charlatan with no relevant qualifications.

True enough. But in these debates I'm seeing more and more anti- conspiracy nuts, or "conspiracy denialists."

People who, perhaps in reaction to the more outlandish conspiracy theories, simply refuse to believe that powerful people ever get together to plan sinister actions in secret. Which is about as naive as you can possibly get.

Both extremes are mistaken. But the conspiracy denialists are far more dangerous and harmful, for they encourage and actively foster a blind faith in what our rulers choose to tell us.

 

[phildwyer]

er yes, because journalists, columnists and yes even editors are really responsible for setting the overall editorial policy of the papers they work for on the big stuff.

Obviously not. Indeed, the entire media agenda is largely set by a single individual (I won't insult your intelligence by naming him). I know for a fact that he regularly organizes long weekends in which prominent politicians, editors and columnists hole up together in a discrete location to "discuss current affairs."

But surely that makes conspiracies easier to carry out, and far more plausible?

 

[trevhagl]

True enough. But in these debates I'm seeing more and more anti- conspiracy nuts, or "conspiracy denialists."

People who, perhaps in reaction to the more outlandish conspiracy theories, simply refuse to believe that powerful people ever get together to plan sinister actions in secret. Which is about as naive as you can possibly get.

Both extremes are mistaken. But the conspiracy denialists are far more dangerous and harmful, for they encourage and actively foster a blind faith in what our rulers choose to tell us.

brilliant post. I think i'll cut and paste it every time the terminally naive argue with me on here.

 

[trevhagl]

You really are a simpleton. There was over a dozen eyewitnesses in and around the tunnel that night. Amazingly you fixate on the one, who supports your claim, and ignore the others. It's called "confirmation of bias" you complete little fucktard. You want there to be a conspiracy, so you choose the eyewitness that supports your claim. A eyewitness who's opinion isn't coberated by other eye witness accounts, and who happens to have a big old conspiracy theory book ready to flog at the time to cash in the controversy.

But you're too busy being Al Fayed's little bitch boy to notice this.

or could it be that those 2 witnesses were the only ones near enough to see what happened? Did you go to Eton with your establishment friends?

 

[trevhagl]

Look Cretin. Could you just stick to one non sequitur at time, when you get exposed as being fucking clueless about Diana, so start ranting about David Kelly, or Steven Lawrence.

The Daily Mail happily named the killers, but you know, and the only reason they've not tried again, is because of double jeopardy, a legal concept that the criminal justice act of 2003 sought to fix. The Steven Lawerence murder trial is considered to be a major influence to this act.

Because you'd know all this, Nah, much better to call everyone who disagrees with you an "establishment whore" While you parrot the idiotic conspiracy theories of a billionaire, you fucking hypocritical little bitch boy.

ah right, as you KNOW that Diana's death was an accident, then i thought you were criticising my Stephen Lawrence post because you were about to defend the establishments failures on THAT one. Be more precise in future

 

[trevhagl]

I can see that "twat" and "foreigner" are like a couple of characters apart, and contain many of the same letters.

So we'll go ahead and add, racist, to the list of things Phil is*

So I may be a foreign twat, but, I'm a foreign twat who got a much greater working understanding how UK newsrooms work, than you Phil.

*List stands at: unfunny, liar, ignorant, immensely punchable, bigot, and clueless asshole"

You better add DWYER to the above remark, or people will think you're talking about your wank fantasy Phil Windsor

 

[trevhagl]

There's never enough evidence to satisfy lunatic conspiracy nuts - unless they're talking about their own pet theories where usually no evidence is required at all - or, at best, some rambling DVD flogging charlatan with no relevant qualifications.

Fair point, only on THIS thread we are talking about Diana and Iraq, and cosy establishment get togethers/conspiracys

all of which you haven't gotta be a mentalist to believe in.

 

[8den]

Obviously not. Indeed, the entire media agenda is largely set by a single individual (I won't insult your intelligence by naming him). I know for a fact that he regularly organizes long weekends in which prominent politicians, editors and columnists hole up together in a discrete location to "discuss current affairs."

But surely that makes conspiracies easier to carry out, and far more plausible?

Do they get naked and worship Molocha as well?

 

[8den]

ah right, as you KNOW that Diana's death was an accident, then i thought you were criticising my Stephen Lawrence post because you were about to defend the establishments failures on THAT one. Be more precise in future

Does the cognitive dissoance give you many headaches?

or could it be that those 2 witnesses

Thats a massive "or could". You've no way of knowing this, you just like to believe this, despite the fact that their accounts don't match other eye witnesses.

were the only ones near enough to see what happened? Did you go to Eton with your establishment friends?

Yes you little wanker I went to Eton and quaffed champers with Dave and Boris.

I'm sure coming up with these little crude sketches of those who disagree with you, makes it easier to continue your bigoted narrow minded worldview.