A Question for Conspiracy Theorists.

Horatius said:
Maybe you missed the part where I specifically don't expect CTists to actually do anything?

But yes, it would be nice if one of you ever actually had the courage of your convictions. And not just about relatively benign CTs like the Apollos Hoax. The CTists who believe in the really evil plots, like 9/11, Chemtrails, FEMA Death Camps, and plots to spread diseases via vaccines, are just as passive as the Apollo Hoax Believers.
Click to expand...

Which shows how little they really believe in their own salad. They can't even be bothered to do anything but rant about it. To me this means they are simply excited at the idea, and role-play a bit until it becomes a bit too true, but they never actually commit to the idea. People have died to fight regimes like the ones they describe.
 
cecil1 said:
I do take that stance but it was not my authoring as explained on post 95, the first reply to your post that you keep ignoring.
Click to expand...
Ignoring? Nope, again, I am trying to make sense of that conflict. On the left hand it is your stance. On the right hand you don't know who it means other than "other people".

Could you at least offer some examples? Whom is it you think has tried to:
tempt you to take sides, to adopt a viewpoint and to fight an enemy
Click to expand...
?

This is after all the stance you take, so whom is it that in your experience constitutes the "them" described in your post?
 
A sweeping generalization of the masses

* Waves arm in a sweeping motion *

Watching you react in such a manner leads me to think you take it personally.
 
cecil1 said:
* Waves arm in a sweeping motion *

Watching you react in such a manner leads me to think you take it personally.
Click to expand...

Ok... perhaps the idea of "examples" confuses you. I did ask for examples pertinent to specific points in the statement.

So what side has the entire population of seven billion pushed you to take?
Whom have all those people in a "sweeping generalisation" wanted you to fight as an enemy?
What viewpoint have *waves arms in a sweeping motion* tried to force you to take?
 
cecil1 said:
What is the problem you have with the faq exactly besides you taking it personally and i'll do my best to answer your queries but I am not the creator of the faq so you'll have to excuse my limited knowledge on it. Also please be reminded you have not backed up your claim that you know love, remembering that I completely doubt you have a shred of knowledge regarding it.
Click to expand...

How should I prove to you that I know love? I mean, it's one of the most ridiculous challenges I've ever had put to me, so I am very interested to know.

As for you not being able to defend your "faq", once again, if you spout it off here, be prepared to defend it. If you can't, keep it to yourself.
 
I have a blog that touches on certain conspiracy things. More so, however, I try to give my readers information that encourages them to do their own research.
 
Tomtomkent said:
Ok... perhaps the idea of "examples" confuses you. I did ask for examples pertinent to specific points in the statement.

So what side has the entire population of seven billion pushed you to take?
Whom have all those people in a "sweeping generalisation" wanted you to fight as an enemy?
What viewpoint have *waves arms in a sweeping motion* tried to force you to take?
Click to expand...

You could always not take it personally, I refuse to take "your" side. Does that make it better for you? Your viewpoint is warped, it takes multiple attempts to get a simple communication across, I would never enter into relations business or otherwise with you (besides to tell you so obviously). Now what is so hard to understand about that? I think you are a part of the *waves arm in a sweeping motion* generalized population and whatever viewpoint you may have I view skeptically. This covers all bases.
 
uke2se said:
How should I prove to you that I know love? I mean, it's one of the most ridiculous challenges I've ever had put to me, so I am very interested to know.

As for you not being able to defend your "faq", once again, if you spout it off here, be prepared to defend it. If you can't, keep it to yourself.
Click to expand...

You made the claim defend it. Obviously you don't know how though.
 
Here's a question for CT'ers.

Many claim that certain things are "staged" to push forward an "agenda"

Examples:- Missing/murdered children are used to put forward the "microchipping of all children" agenda.

Mass shootings in America are used to put forward the "disarm the population" agenda.

Five years ago, CT'ers were screaming about Madeleine McCann's disappearance being used for the microchip agenda, yet six years later...no microchips for kids. They're still at it today with the Tia Sharp case (they've solved that one already, it seems, according to the DIF), and every child abduction case in between, and before, like the Soham murders.

Every time a mass shooting occurs in the USA, they scream about the "disarming" agenda, but as far as I'm aware, Americans can still get hold of guns in most places, without much hassle, as long as they conform to a few basic rules. The CT'ers are screaming about the "disarming" agenda again after the Denver shootings.

So why would these two recent cases be any different to the cases in previous years? When do "they" plan to implement these things?
 
cecil1 said:
You could always not take it personally, I refuse to take "your" side. Does that make it better for you? Your viewpoint is warped, it takes multiple attempts to get a simple communication across, I would never enter into relations business or otherwise with you (besides to tell you so obviously). Now what is so hard to understand about that? I think you are a part of the *waves arm in a sweeping motion* generalized population and whatever viewpoint you may have I view skeptically. This covers all bases.
Click to expand...

Ok... so as for those examples i asked for, if you insist on using me (which is a contradiction to your suggestion I should not take something personally, which by the way is a fallacious and unfounded accusation still) perhaps you could tell me what side I have tempted you to take, which enemy to fight? You know, the specific points you raised.

If you could try and respond to the simple questions I have asked, rather than continuing to labour under false assumptions about who is, or is not, capable of love, taking thingspersonally, or warped, or indeed trying to answer a completely different question, it would be greatly appreciated. One would assume as you posted "your stance" in a discussion you would actually want to discuss it. As such an actual example of who has tempted you to their view, forced you take sides, or to fight, would be pertinent. Not a generalisation, an example. From your experience.


I am baffled why that is so difficult to answer with out trollish accusations and petty insults.
 
cecil1 said:
You made the claim defend it. Obviously you don't know how though.
Click to expand...

The chap asked HOW he should prove the issue, not if he should. I notice you don't offer any suggestions. Why did you bring his capability of love into the discussion? Is it relevent? Do you have any reason to make such judgements?

Is it not rather personal of you to ask? Especially when your key complaint has been your assumption others are not objective?
 
Tomtomkent said:
The chap asked HOW he should prove the issue, not if he should. I notice you don't offer any suggestions. Why did you bring his capability of love into the discussion? Is it relevent? Do you have any reason to make such judgements?

Is it not rather personal of you to ask? Especially when your key complaint has been your assumption others are not objective?
Click to expand...

So you are going to ask me how you would teach something you don't know as well?

This is why I refuse to take your side.

You can't teach something you don't know.

ETA: Your answers are in the faq. Political or social. Your taking it personally.
 
Last edited:
this cecil1 thing is one of the weirdest things. I have no idea why it's even in this thread.

Person A: Here's what I believe, followed by a wall of gibberish.
Person B: What does that mean?
Person A: How the hell should I know? I'm not psychic!
Person B: But you posted it as what you believe.
Person A: DON'T TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY

:confused::confused::confused::confused:
 
*sigh*

cecil1 said:
So you are going to ask me how you would teach something you don't know as well?
Click to expand...
No. I would like you to answer the questions asked. You demand somebody proves they "know love", asking what you would accept as valid proof seems reasonable when faced with such a silly request.

This is why I refuse to take your side.
Click to expand...

And what "side" do I represent?

You can't teach something you don't know.
Click to expand...
Then its a good job I have only been asking you for clarifications and examples ofwhat yourgibberish means.
ETA: Your answers are in the faq. Political or social. Your taking it personally.
Click to expand...

I already explained the faq is gibberish, I am not taking anything persoally and am asking your opinion and interpetation of what you posted, as you claim it represents your "stance". For somebody who has been willing to throw accusations of paranoia, ranting and inability to love at people you seem to be rather desperate to convince yourself that I want you to join some side or other and am taking something personally. If you don't mind me saying that would seem to be a rather unhealthy result of your ethos. The world must seem very lonely at times when you expect everybody to be trying to make you take sides and fight enemies, to have an alterior motive.
 
gabeygoat said:
this cecil1 thing is one of the weirdest things. I have no idea why it's even in this thread.

Person A: Here's what I believe, followed by a wall of gibberish.
Person B: What does that mean?
Person A: How the hell should I know? I'm not psychic!
Person B: But you posted it as what you believe.
Person A: DON'T TAKE IT SO PERSONALLY

:confused::confused::confused::confused:
Click to expand...

I am especially confused when somebody calls others paranoid, ranting, incapable of love THEN after making such intimate statements tells you not to take it personally. Nobody elseis taking it personally, but he or she seems to be...
 
BaldSeagull said:
Here's a question for CT'ers.

Many claim that certain things are "staged" to push forward an "agenda"

Examples:- Missing/murdered children are used to put forward the "microchipping of all children" agenda.

Mass shootings in America are used to put forward the "disarm the population" agenda.

Five years ago, CT'ers were screaming about Madeleine McCann's disappearance being used for the microchip agenda, yet six years later...no microchips for kids. They're still at it today with the Tia Sharp case (they've solved that one already, it seems, according to the DIF), and every child abduction case in between, and before, like the Soham murders.

Every time a mass shooting occurs in the USA, they scream about the "disarming" agenda, but as far as I'm aware, Americans can still get hold of guns in most places, without much hassle, as long as they conform to a few basic rules. The CT'ers are screaming about the "disarming" agenda again after the Denver shootings.

So why would these two recent cases be any different to the cases in previous years? When do "they" plan to implement these things?
Click to expand...

See... that's because CTers were so good at revealing the conspiracy, that the conspirators decided to renegue.
 
Tomtomkent said:
I am especially confused when somebody calls others paranoid, ranting, incapable of love THEN after making such intimate statements tells you not to take it personally. Nobody elseis taking it personally, but he or she seems to be...
Click to expand...

I think at least some of them are so used to being ignored by their friends, family and co-workers they are truly surprised when debunked.
 
cecil1 said:
You made the claim defend it. Obviously you don't know how though.
Click to expand...

You made the claim that I don't know love. You made it first. Thus the burden of evidence lies on you.

Sorry, bud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom