Woods, I did no such thing. You raised David Icke (in his connection with zeitgeist) ... I simply expressed amazement at a reference to Icke on MD (I know he's part of it ... that's very old news)
I expressed no view one way or the other on zeitgeist itself - I said my piece on that a couple of years ago when it was news. I explicitly expressed amazement at the conspiracy theory processes in action. Gobsmacked, lost for words. Nothing to debate. Ian On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Woods Woods <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian, > > You brought up David Icke as a dismissal point to > any opposition of zeitgeist. For if David Icke dismisses > zeitgeist, well, then this opposition is low value for David > Icke is not credible. Well, if you knew that David > Icke was also used as a source for zeitgeist what might > you have thought. I guess if I use your line of argumentation, > then zeitgeist is not credible for David Icke contributed to > zeitgeist. So, that was pretty much your only line of > argumentation that could have been a good foundation to > ward off any opposition to zeitgeist and now I find > David Icke is a contributor to zeitgeist so that pretty > much rids your argument. Sorry, come up with > something more debatable: > > > http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm > > > > woods > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
