--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > new.morning wrote: > > >--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > > >>new.morning wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>--- In [email protected], Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>new.morning wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Remember today's conspiracy theory may well be tomorrow's news. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>Actually, no. You have it backwards. > >>> > >>>There are 10,000's conspiracy theories -- few ever come to anything. > >>>But a few do. > >>> > >>>It is a huge logical fallacy to think that because some event was > >>>presaged by a conspiracy theorist, that therefore most conspiracy > >>>theories are valid and come true. Unfortunately this is a common > >>>defect found in the mind-set of many conspiracy nutes. > >>> > >>>Tomorrow's news periodically will be based on a conspiracy theory -- > >>>but today's conspiracy theory seldom becomes tomorow's news. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Your proof? > >> > >> > >> > >HAHAHA. Great imitation and parody of a die-hard conspiratist. You got > >the dumb-struck cluelessness of many conspiratorists perfectly. > > > >Only a total fool would look at the 10,000's of conspiracy theories > >that were present in the 60's and/or 70's and/or 80s that have not > >panned out -- only a few have born any seeds of credibility -- to > >realize there is far from a 1:1 correspondence between conspiracy > >theories and their actual fruition 10-30 years later. Its maybe closer > >to a 1:1,000,000 correspondence. > > > >"Ya know you dodn't need a weatherman to know which way the wind > >blows." :) > > > >HAHA. keep up the great work on these parodies. They are killing me. :) > > > Great I'll keep posting what you believe to be "conspiracy > theories" then. I know a lot of New Age folks and Indiaphiles > find such things entertaining so that's why I post them. I > suspect if I had told you back in the 70's that the Gulf of > Tonkin was a false flag operation you would have thought me > nuts. But we know now it was.
FWIW, a lot of the '70s conspiracy theories turned out to be true, the biggest, of course, being Watergate and its revelations of Nixon's evildoing. Then Iran-contra turned out to be true, and of course Clinton-Lewinski. Most of the big scandals don't just come out of nowhere; they're almost always conspiracy theories before they're exposed as fact. > The reason some people reject what they feel are conspiracy > theories is that they don't want to be seen as "kooks" > themselves if they entertain them. On the other hand, Bhairitu, some people are just selective about which conspiracy theories they'll entertain, on the basis of whether they make sense or not. And then there's the meta-conspiracy theory, which *I* think makes sense, that a lot of the conspiracy theories are based on *disinformation* put out by people who are trying to distract attention from real dirt. The unselective conspiracy theorists get all excited and go after the red herrings, which keeps them from investigating what the disinformation- pushers want to keep hidden. The "inside job" theory of 9/11, in all its many forms, is one example. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
