'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[phildwyer]

Dwyer's trolling trev, why on earth do you think he's really agreeing with anything you're posting?

Jazzz, perhaps you might like to ask the odd questions of dwyer's obsesseion with inventing fake positions to shir shit up and for no other reason at all.

He sure as fuck isn't agreeing with you in the slightest in reality, and is of no real help or support to you if you had any sense. He's just inventing faux-opinions simply and only to attack anti-conspiracists and for no other purpose.

He's got a track record of adopting 'contrarian' positions on Urban on any subject you care to think of, a record that's as long as your arm, remember?

But William can’t you see that in reality dwyer is only pretending not to disbelieve in anything you say on here without the slightest Guardian chance that he actually doesn’t think that you weren’t being serious when you said that real ale he could claim that the Glastonbury position he “pretends” not to hold wasn’t at first the one that you spliff said before that he refused to engage seriously with his trolling attempt to real ale convince everyone that Jazzz and he really agreed without Glastonbury that you actually believed what he (trollingly) ever insincerely thought that people wouldn’t smoke pint put thoughts in his pretending brain with me and your claim to assume when your conspiraloon friends wanted everyone on here to real ale think that the so-called (quoted above) untrue (lyingly) banned claims to have not believed however never ever Glastonbury truthers nutjob with his real ale shouldn’t re-examine dwyer’s false opinion that in reality he thought too many Urbanites hadn’t seen through his usual technique of spliff and troll fantasist anti-William non-dwyer 9/11 nutbobbin see-through my on ignore (as quoted above) troll maneuver Guardian real-life opinion trollery loonscum forum in the untrue pretence that he wasn’t not believing much (if at all) ever that we said yesterday?

Hic.

 

[8den]

I believe you once (still have for all I know) had a little webpage telling the world what you believe when it comes to the internet....

Oh pm please.

Doing a check on Phil Dwyer on google just reveals his a character in those emo vampire twilight books.

 

[trevhagl]

Phil has made no mention of Diana and Xes only mentioned her once...

- if you are counting that as support you are more deluded than you appear.



Well, we only have your word for that; I don't suppose you have a link to prove it, I doubt it, because you're not too much into evidence, are you?

And, even if that's true, it was BEFORE the evidence was made available, again I realise why you don't get this - because you don't do evidence.

i am not really sad enough to go looking for evidence. Mind you pay me Mansfields wage and i will give it a go!



There was no miracle 'bright light', other than headlights & camera flashes there was no light.
apart from the one the witness reported!



Ignorant twat.

the nasty man he swear at me

 

[phildwyer]

the nasty man he swear at me

It matters so much to them, doesn't it?

It not only matters to them that there must be no conspiracies. It is vitally important to them that no-one even believes in conspiracies.

In fact, as we've seen here, the most hysterical of the conspiracy denialists can't even accept that anyone does believe in conspiracies.

How mad is that?

 

[trevhagl]

It matters so much to them, doesn't it?

It not only matters to them that there must be no conspiracies. It is vitally important to them that no-one even believes in conspiracies.

In fact, as we've seen here, the most hysterical of the conspiracy denialists can't even accept that anyone does believe in conspiracies.

How mad is that?

I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the intelligence (pardon the pun)

 

[fogbat]

I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the intelligance (pardon the pun)

lulz

 

[phildwyer]

I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the intelligance (pardon the pun)

I think I understand it.

Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful. When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to systematically-- that our entire system is based on lies.

Some people can't handle that. Thus the following chain of crazy logic develops:

1. They don't want to believe that powerful people ever conspire together against the public interest.

2. They don't want you to believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

3. They don't even want to believe that you really do believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

And so before we know it, we're on the fast train to Williamville.

 

[claphamboy]

the nasty man he swear at me

That's it is it? That's all you can come back with?

Well, that and calling anyone that disagrees with your bonkers an establishment whore.

Oh, how ironic.

It matters so much to them, doesn't it?

It not only matters to them that there must be no conspiracies. It is vitally important to them that no-one even believes in conspiracies.

In fact, as we've seen here, the most hysterical of the conspiracy denialists can't even accept that anyone does believe in conspiracies.

How mad is that?

No one has denied there must be no conspiracies, and no one has denied that anyone can’t possibly believe in conspiracies - only that you don't believe some/most/all the stuff that you have posted on this thread.

But, you carry on repeating the lies, I am sure if you do it enough some twat that comes along will actually believe it.....

...oh, they have already.

 

[trevhagl]

I think I understand it.

Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful. When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to systematically-- that our entire system is based on lies.

Some people can't handle that. Thus the following chain of crazy logic develops:

1. They don't want to believe that powerful people ever conspire together against the public interest.

2. They don't want you to believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

3. They don't even want to believe that you really do believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

And so before we know it, we're on the fast train to Williamville.

this is true. I don't think William is as bad as the rest though, who simply bear grudges and follow you to the ends of the earth looking for arguments, even on the thread about the post office where I said that the management would wait till the new year when mail slackens off then RM will start the intimidation/liberty taking again, and guess what? Clapham Boy, for the sake of arguing, said that mail levels were more or less the same throughout the year cos of business post !!!!

If i come on here saying "I love obnoxious cockney wankers" he would STILL argue the toss

 

[claphamboy]

I could understand it if they worked for M15/M16 or if they were government ministers but i don't think they'd have the intelligence (pardon the pun)

lolz

* It doesn't matter correcting the spelling, you questioning other people's intelligence is still funny as fuck.

 

[claphamboy]

this is true. I don't think William is as bad as the rest though, who simply bear grudges and follow you to the ends of the earth looking for arguments, even on the thread about the post office where I said that the management would wait till the new year when mail slackens off then RM will start the intimidation/liberty taking again, and guess what? Clapham Boy, for the sake of arguing, said that mail levels were more or less the same throughout the year cos of business post !!!!

If i come on here saying "I love obnoxious cockney wankers" he would STILL argue the toss

A - That is not what you said.

B - That is not what I said.

C - I didn't follow you on to that thread, I posted on it before you.

D - Cross-thread trolling, as you have done here, is against the rules, please refrain for doing it.

 

[phildwyer]

this is true. I don't think William is as bad as the rest though

He's not "bad" at all. Mad certainly, and dangerous to know possibly, but not in any way malign.

He does however have real difficulty in accepting that other people may hold views that differ from his own. To William, his approach to life is obviously correct, so clearly well-balanced and rational, that he sincerely cannot conceive that others might see things differently.

It's the same on the "God" threads. William is an atheist, which is fair enough. But he simply will not accept that there are some intelligent and rational people who believe in God. For him, anyone who says they believe in God is either insane or lying. And it's not just him either, there are loads of people like him here.

It just goes to show the power of ideology.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I think I understand it.

Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful. When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to systematically-- that our entire system is based on lies.

Some people can't handle that. Thus the following chain of crazy logic develops:

1. They don't want to believe that powerful people ever conspire together against the public interest.

2. They don't want you to believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

3. They don't even want to believe that you really do believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

And so before we know it, we're on the fast train to Williamville.

Completely predicated on false assumptions, yawn.


Let's take the example of a political activist. Or a whistle blower. Or an investigative journalist. Who want to alert the public to the fact that powerful people are conspiring together to do something bad. Like, dump toxic waste and hide evidence that it's toxic. Or do a bit of insider trading. Or land rendition planes in the UK. Or whatever. I am sure that you can think of lots pf people who fall into this category, and a lot of members of the public, people who watch the news, take an interest in current affairs etc including the majority of people on this board, who would be keen on seeing investigations mounted, evidence discovered and published, wrongdoers exposed, justice done, conspiracies prosecuted etc etc.

Do they believe that people in power are entirely benign and truthful?
No.
Do they have to believe in evidence-unsupported 'truther' conspiracy theories in order to pursue investigations into abuses of power? No.

Canard.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Thing is, someone upthread said that some AW3 speakers were sensible like Norman Baker, but anyone who has read his book knows that even though he is super-cautious he goes into some very shady areas like South Africas Project Coast and the deaths of microbiologists.

Then there are people who aint loons, but some here would love to think were, like Cynthia Mckinney who has been a consistent asker of common sense questions on 911.

The net has made people more aware of things but there is also an echochamber, an tendancy with some to see a conspiracy in everything. It's just not as simple as saying "oh, it's their psychology" on one side or "why do you always trust the government?" on the other.

Case by case basis, and there is some weird old stuff out there.

 

[phildwyer]

Canard.

Well the way I look at it is, there are nutters on both sides.

There are certainly people who are predisposed to believe any conspiracy theory, and who will blithely disregard the lack of any supporting evidence.

Equally certainly however, there are people who are predisposed to dismiss any conspiracy theory as crazy, loony, nutbobbin etc., and who will blithely disregard any evidence that is produced. William is a fine example of this type.

Both extremes are deluded. However, the conspiracy denialists are much more dangerous, because they play straight into the hands of the genuinely evil and manipulative people who rule us.

 

[phildwyer]

Case by case basis, and there is some weird old stuff out there.

Agreed.

If we accept that those who rule our society are basically corrupt and self-interested, then it follows as surely as night follows day that there must be quite a few genuine conspiracies afoot.

The task is to identify them.

That task is not made easier by the suckers and dupes who howl down all conspiracy theories as bonkers, loonspud, barking etc: the pathological conspiracy denialists. And there are many more conspiracy denialists than there are conspiracy theorists.

 

[Badger Kitten]

'Conspiracy-denialist' = 'Person who thinks the powerful do no wrong' is pretty much a canard as well: a last-ditch attempt by conspiracy-theorists to try to even it up. Even Sister Wendy types and Fotherington-Thomases tend to accept that bad people do bad things.

Can you actually find me an example of someone who disses conspiracy theories such as 'the jews were warned about 9/11' or 'Diana was killed because carrying a Muslim baby'' or 'the Twin Towers were wired with explosives' or whatever specifically saying 'Governments do no wrong' and 'powerful people don't ever conspire together against the public interest'?

Is it really reasonable to make claims that people who don't buy conspiracy theories think Governments do no wrong and powerful people never conspire against the public interest? Really?

It's an incredibly weak, logic-stretching place to bat from, isn't it? I agree people can be over-vociferous in attacking conspiracy theories but to extrapolate from that the conspiraloon-attackers are all Pollyannas who think powerful people can do no wrong is pretty ludicrous.

That conspiracy theorists have to resort to such tactics just makes them look paranoid and unable to grasp facts and weigh evidence without projecting emotion all over it, which is no surprise tbf.

 

[editor]

Both extremes are deluded. However, the conspiracy denialists are much more dangerous, because they play straight into the hands of the genuinely evil and manipulative people who rule us.

Tsk. Very low quaity trolling.

Equally certainly however, there are people who are predisposed to dismiss any conspiracy theory as crazy, loony, nutbobbin etc., and who will blithely disregard any evidence that is produced. William is a fine example of this type..

This is your last and final warning. Stop this or be banned.

 

[phildwyer]

Can you actually find me an example of someone who disses conspiracy theories such as 'the jews were warned about 9/11' or 'Diana was killed because carrying a Muslim baby'' or 'the Twin Towers were wired with explosives' or whatever specifically saying 'Governments do no wrong' and 'powerful people don't ever conspire together against the public interest'?

They might not put it in such general terms, but there are plenty of people who will, in practice, deny any specific conspiracy, no matter how uncontroversial.

Just recently on here I've encountered people who denied that the Mafia had a hand in the murder of JFK (8den), and that the CIA sold cocaine to fund the Contras (Blagsta). Both of which are as solidly established facts as one could wish for.

 

[Badger Kitten]

I am asking you to back up your (incredibly feeble) point; 'conspiracy -denialists' ( ie. people who do not believe the conspiracy theories, which is most people, remember since conspiracy theorists are a minority) think ''rulers are basically benign and truthful'' and ''powerful people do not conspire against the public interest''.

Their entire world-view is constructed on the assumption that our rulers are basically benign and truthful. When this is shown to be an illusion with regard to one issue, it raises the awful possibility that we are being lied to systematically-- that our entire system is based on lies.

Some people can't handle that. Thus the following chain of crazy logic develops:

1. They don't want to believe that powerful people ever conspire together against the public interest.

2. They don't want you to believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

3. They don't even want to believe that you really do believe that powerful people conspire together against the public interest.

You can't.

It is a canard.

 

[phildwyer]

Even Sister Wendy types and Fotherington-Thomases tend to accept that bad people do bad things.

But they don't follow that belief through to its logical conclusion.

Look: do you accept that the politicians and capitalists who rule our society are corrupt and self-interested?

If you do, surely you must accept that they undoubtedly often conspire to nefarious ends.

So the existence of conspiracies is not in doubt. The only problem is to identify them. With me so far?

Well, you're not going to get very far identifying them with the knee-jerk conspiracy denialism that we see on these boards day after day. Not that all denialists are nutters, but we need to treat their theories with a healthy dose of skepticism. And it seems to me that your argument prevents us from doing that.

 

[editor]

But they don't follow that belief through to its logical conclusion.

Look: do you accept that the politicians and capitalists who rule our society are corrupt and self-interested?

If you do, surely you must accept that they undoubtedly often conspire to nefarious ends.

So the existence of conspiracies is not in doubt. The only problem is to identify them. With me so far?

Well, you're not going to get very far identifying them with the knee-jerk conspiracy denialism that we see on these boards day after day. Not that all denialists are nutters, but we need to treat their theories with a healthy dose of skepticism. And it seems to me that your argument prevents us from doing that.

Still trolling away, I see. How very, very dull.

BK: I wouldn't bother with him, myself.

 

[phildwyer]

Still trolling away, I see. How very, very dull.

BK: I wouldn't bother with him, myself.

And that, amigos, is what we call an admission of defeat.

My work here is done. For now...

 

[Badger Kitten]

Phil, trying to claim that everyone ( which is most people) who doesn't buy conspiracy theories acts that way because they ''think ''rulers are basically benign and truthful'' and ''powerful people do not conspire against the public interest'' is just silly.

You know it, I know it, stop wriggling. You overplayed it, badly.

 

[editor]

And that, amigos, is what we call an admission of defeat.

My work here is done. For now...

LOL. Even when you've been caught with your pants down, you're still desperately trying to troll away. It's all a bit pathetic now, really.

Still, at least it's an improvement on the usual snidey personal digs and ad hominems you've recently sullied your character with here. They were proof indeed of the fact you'd lost the argument a long time ago.

 

[Badger Kitten]

Still trolling away, I see. How very, very dull.

BK: I wouldn't bother with him, myself.

It is too silly for words. It did deserve pointing out though, as a massive elephant trap Phil fell into all by himself. But now I have to go and buy some thermal socks so my feet don't freeze tonight at the fireworks and I am off and out of this silly thread.

 

[phildwyer]

Phil, trying to claim that everyone ( which is most people) who doesn't buy conspiracy theories acts that way because they ''think ''rulers are basically benign and truthful'' and ''powerful people do not conspire against the public interest'' is just silly.

Which is why I didn't claim any such thing.

Once again (and then I really will go away for a bit): if you accept that we are ruled by corrupt and self-interested people, then surely you must accept that conspiracies exist.

Therefore to dismiss "CT-ers" or "truthers" en masse is just silly. And there are plenty of people here who do exactly that (I guess I'm now forbidden to name them but you know who I mean).

A case-by-case basis is the only way to approach these things, as Taffboy has said.

 

[editor]

A case-by-case basis is the only way to approach these things, as Taffboy has said.

And that's just about how everyone judges them here, no matter how much you try to suggest otherwise. As well you know.

Anyway, this is piss poor stuff, even by your standards, so I'm off to look at something more interesting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I believe you once (still have for all I know) had a little webpage telling the world what you believe when it comes to the internet....

You mean the one where he describes his approach as "<snip - oi>"?

 

[trevhagl]

Which is why I didn't claim any such thing.

Once again (and then I really will go away for a bit): if you accept that we are ruled by corrupt and self-interested people, then surely you must accept that conspiracies exist.

Therefore to dismiss "CT-ers" or "truthers" en masse is just silly. And there are plenty of people here who do exactly that (I guess I'm now forbidden to name them but you know who I mean).

A case-by-case basis is the only way to approach these things, as Taffboy has said.

very true.

Lizards ? Er no.
The establishment bumping someone off who was making a fool of the Royals and campaigning against land mines? Probably.