The conspiracy of conspiracy theories

[SoCrazes]

I was editing my post while you responded to it. First time this has happened to me. I'll repeat my edit here:

The title of YOUR post is "The conspiracy of conspiracy theories" and I beleive this question ("Why did the U.S. (et al) invade Iraq?" ) cuts at the heart of the issues you posted here. You've made some accusations and now are seemingly running and hiding from the issues. You even ask others to define a term (vast) that you use repeatedly in your posts.

I making a simple request: define a term you use in your posts (vast) and answer the question, "Why did the U.S. (et al) invade Iraq?".

[BlindMessiah]

Look back at all the articles on the home page recently about conspiracy-this, conspiracy-that. For example, recently there was an article and thread (too lazy to look for it now) that someone claimed there are 15,000 people world wide that are controlling the "new world order". The person went on to claim that Hitler was only trying to kill the 15,000 and thus do the world a favor and save us from the new world order. That seems like a "vast conspiracy" to me.

Yes... the world is financially run by about fifteen thousand people. The Hitler thing is people adding their own flavor of stupidity to an otherwise valid theory.

[MasterPo]

Yes... the world is financially run by about fifteen thousand people. The Hitler thing is people adding their own flavor of stupidity to an otherwise valid theory.

As I've posted many times in the paranormal forum, an idea or concept isn't a "theory" just because someone proposes it. A real "theory" has some evidence or logical methodology to support it.

Based on that, what is the groundwork for 15,000? Reminds me of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original) when the spy comes up with the idea of syaing there are 57 communists in the American government just because he saw the number 57 on a bottle of Heinz ketchup!

[BlindMessiah]

As I've posted many times in the paranormal forum, an idea or concept isn't a "theory" just because someone proposes it. A real "theory" has some evidence or logical methodology to support it.

Based on that, what is the groundwork for 15,000? Reminds me of the movie "The Manchurian Candidate" (the original) when the spy comes up with the idea of syaing there are 57 communists in the American government just because he saw the number 57 on a bottle of Heinz ketchup!

Never seen the movie... but...

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory.

[MasterPo]

Never seen the movie... but...

Theory: a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

You are confusing a theory with a scientific theory.

I usually agree with you. But now you're splitting hairs.

[el midgetron]

So you think the idea that a group of rich a powerful people could be working together to become more rich and powerful is "ridiculous" and requires the "suspension of logic", yet you not only believe in ghosts you actively go hunting for them? Wouldn't the likelyhood of something in this plane of existance be trillions of times more likely than something in some other completely unproven theoretic plane of existance?

[MasterPo]

So you think the idea that a group of rich a powerful people could be working together to become more rich and powerful is "ridiculous" and requires the "suspension of logic",

One more time:

Not everything, not even most things, that happen in the world are the result of a conspiracy of a vast network of people around the world that has been going on for centuries.

yet you not only believe in ghosts you actively go hunting for them? Wouldn't the likelyhood of something in this plane of existance be trillions of times more likely than something in some other completely unproven theoretic plane of existance?

Who says I believe in ghosts? Investigation of unsual phenomena isn't an automatic belief they are the result of Casper.

More over, I have seen, heard and experienced with my own senses events that I can not give a reasonable explanation to by normal/common events. Still doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable explanation out there waiting to be found.

This isn't too differenct from all this conspiracy theories. Just as with the paranormal there are a great many so-called investigators who believe every dust orb is a ghost, ever creek and tap is a spirit trying to communicate, every flick of a meter is hard evidence of an entity and nothing you say will convince them otherwise, so it is with conspiracy theorists. Rather than admit the greater likelihood of a simpler explanation they weave a long and tangled web of disinformation, cover up, suppression, and plans with in plans.

Even Sigmon Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[ValkyrieVoice]

MasterPo: It seems today more than ever people are rushing head-long into believing every crazy conspiracy theory that is put forth. The more ridiculous the more it's believed. There are conspiracy theories about 9/11, oil/gas, the "new world order", shadow governments, the often mentioned who shot JFK, and as Hilary Clinton made popular the "vast right-wing" conspiracy just to name a few of the more common and popular ones. Never mind that "vast" or "world wide" and "conspiracy" are oxymoronic concepts. So why? Why do so many otherwise seemingly reasonably intelligent people prefer to believe tightly woven conspiracy theories rather than simple answers?

I believe it is because today, perhaps more than ever, people work so hard and get so little satisfaction they would rather believe in vast secret organizations that control everything than the simple reality that life and the world holds no promises and guarantees nothing. As alarmed as people say they are at the concept of a vast conspiracy controlling the world I believe that at some level they do take comfort in thinking at least someone somewhere is in control. Maybe not controlling things for the better (as the mass of people view it) but still in control.

The alternative is purely random and unrelated events. Or that bad things happen to good people and not everyone is a nice person underneath. People can't handle the "it just is" aspect of life.

This is really no different than hundreds or thousands of years ago. When there was a flood or plague or a famine people searched for answers. They found it in religion believing these bad events were the result of an angry deity who saw all their deep dark sins and was now punishing them for it. They didn't see these things as natural events that were bound to happen sooner or later.

This is no different than today when people lament why someone kills themselves and takes 100 or more people with them. The conspiracy side says it's the result of anger and frustration at the victims, and that government knew it would happen and did nothing about it. In fact, perhaps even encouraged it to advance their own agenda. This as oppose to recognizing that there are evil people in the world who just want to kill. As Michael Cane's character of Alfred in "Dark Knight" said of the Joker, quote "Some men can't be reasoned with, can't be bought. They just want to watch the world burn."

Another example: The once-in-100-years storm come and devastates an area. Rather than say "We knew this would happen someday and simply chose to live here anyway" or "We knew this always a possibility but decided not to spend the money to protect against this rare event" it's easier to blame a secret government plot to purposely inflict casualties on a certain class of people.

In some ways too this is a vote of confidence in the system. That people actually believe that government, organizations, businesses etc. are that well controlled and disciplined to be able to exert such total control without anyone being aware.

Again, I think this goes back to a human need to believe there is a structured reason for events and not just the out come of hundreds of random events.

"Vast conspiracies" require the suspension of logical belief to be effective. Remember Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Is it simpler to say that bad events happen sometimes in life? Is it easier to admit there are evil people in the world who just like to hurt others? Or is it easier to believe in vast networks of shadowy organizations that control everything and no one ever spills the beans about it.

Then again, perhaps the conspiracy is just that: making people think there are vast conspiracies out there! When people will suspend their logical thought and believe in anything that's when they are truly easily controlled.

Think about it.

The Po File – As told to MasterPo by MasterPo

http://pofile.blogspot.com

Yeah, but people can't trust the government and other world organizations. To see where the government or other world organizations "could" very well be behind something isn't necessarily unsound to do. They have given us reasons not to trust them afterall.

[MasterPo]

Yeah, but people can't trust the government and other world organizations. To see where the government or other world organizations "could" very well be behind something isn't necessarily unsound to do. They have given us reasons not to trust them afterall.

Just because one can't trust the gov doesn't automatically mean everything is a lie or deception either. Especially not a link in a long chain of planned events spanning centuries to take over the world.

Just because something "could" be behind an event does not automatically mean it is or even likely to be. And it certainly doesn't validate the idea a plausable theory that should be given weight.

Edited September 7, 2008 by MasterPo

[el midgetron]

One more time:

Not everything, not even most things, that happen in the world are the result of a conspiracy of a vast network of people around the world that has been going on for centuries.

So what? Who said that is how it is in the first place?

More over, I have seen, heard and experienced with my own senses events that I can not give a reasonable explanation to by normal/common events. Still doesn't mean there isn't a reasonable explanation out there waiting to be found.

Remember Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. If you have experianced something you cannot explain, its far more likely that you lack the ability to explain your own environment than it is that something supernatural is occuring. So why? Why do so many otherwise seemingly reasonably intelligent people prefer to believe in haunted houses and ghost stories rather than simple answers?

I think its because once someone has reached the point where they are dressing up in all black with a group of like minded people and are going to the spookiest place they can think of fully equiped with night vison video cameras, giger counters and ectoplasum receptacles, they are going to suspend logic and experiance what they want to experiance, reguardless of reality.

This isn't too differenct from all this conspiracy theories. Just as with the paranormal there are a great many so-called investigators who believe every dust orb is a ghost, ever creek and tap is a spirit trying to communicate, every flick of a meter is hard evidence of an entity and nothing you say will convince them otherwise, so it is with conspiracy theorists. Rather than admit the greater likelihood of a simpler explanation they weave a long and tangled web of disinformation, cover up, suppression, and plans with in plans.

Even Sigmon Freud said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Yes "so called" investigators....... Its interesting how you see yourself as above the average ghost hunter. However, like so meny, you to believe you have experienced something you cannot explain. Rather than admit the greater likelihood of a simpler explanation, you choose to look for answers in the unknown by creating a fantasy world of ghosts, hauntings and supernatural nonsense.

[MasterPo]

So what? Who said that is how it is in the first place?

Read the conspiracy theory articles here. Spend some time on the conspiracy forum. Check out other conspriacy sites.

Remember Occam's Razor: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. If you have experianced something you cannot explain, its far more likely that you lack the ability to explain your own environment than it is that something supernatural is occuring. So why? Why do so many otherwise seemingly reasonably intelligent people prefer to believe in haunted houses and ghost stories rather than simple answers?

Don't even think of quoting Occam back to me. I was the one who wrote the Occam Razor article for this site! (and caught hell for it too)

I think its because once someone has reached the point where they are dressing up in all black with a group of like minded people and are going to the spookiest place they can think of fully equiped with night vison video cameras, giger counters and ectoplasum receptacles, they are going to suspend logic and experiance what they want to experiance, reguardless of reality.

You obviously don't know me or my paranormal group. I feel safe to say we are probably the most skeptical paranormal group in the country. We are harder on eveidence than even TAPS is. We toss out more "evidence" in one investigation than others get in a year of investigations. If you had been around the paranormal forums here for the last year or so you would have seen the arguments I had with certain other members who claim hard evidence and I shot it all down.

But I'm not here representing my group. This article and my posts are my own and only coincidentally reflect any opinions of the group (like minds getting together and all).

Yes "so called" investigators....... Its interesting how you see yourself as above the average ghost hunter. However, like so meny, you to believe you have experienced something you cannot explain. Rather than admit the greater likelihood of a simpler explanation, you choose to look for answers in the unknown by creating a fantasy world of ghosts, hauntings and supernatural nonsense.

Again, this article is not about the paranormal. It's about people who see conspiricies everywhere rather than more direct cause-effect results.

I totally agree there could be a very logical reasonable explanation for some of the things I've experienced that has yet to be found. But with the equipment presently available that answer doesn't immediately jump out. Nor to other skeptical theories stand up to analysis.

Go back and read my article here about "There are no ghost detectors!". If you do have an open mind on the subject I think it will fill in a lot of the gaps you seem to be making broad brush assumptions about.

Edited September 7, 2008 by MasterPo

[el midgetron]

Read the conspiracy theory articles here. Spend some time on the conspiracy forum. Check out other conspriacy sites.

??? What kind of an answer is that?? Guess what Po, I spend alot of time on the conspiracy forum and other conspiracy sites and watching documentaries and reading books and whatever.

It was a straight forward question which you have failed to answer without refering to some "shadowy organization" of conspiracy folks. Its your own poor interpitation which is probably the result of the same thinking that ghosts are hiding behind every corner.

Don't even think of quoting Occam back to me. I was the one who wrote the Occam Razor article for this site! (and caught hell for it too)

To late, I allready did. I guess you also falsely believe that by writing an article about something you earn intelectual property rights to the subject? Or maybe you are just alittle full of MaterPo?

You obviously don't know me or my paranormal group. I feel safe to say we are probably the most skeptical paranormal group in the country. We are harder on eveidence than even TAPS is. We toss out more "evidence" in one investigation than others get in a year of investigations. If you had been around the paranormal forums here for the last year or so you would have seen the arguments I had with certain other members who claim hard evidence and I shot it all down.

But I'm not here representing my group. This article and my posts are my own and only coincidentally reflect any opinions of the group (like minds getting together and all).

So you guys are more hardcore than some Tv show? You do realize "TAPS" is on the SCIENCE FICTION channel right? How do you stack up against the GhostBusters? Both the movies and cartoon?

Heres a news flash for you, being "skeptical" isn't the same or even comparable to being intelectual or using unbiased logic. Someone could be the "most skeptical" believer in gigantic flying purple tennis shoes but they still don't have enough unbiased logic to realize the "simpler truth" that there is no such thing as gigantic flying purple tennis shoes.

Let me know when you prove ghosts rule the world.

Again, this article is not about the paranormal. It's about people who see conspiricies everywhere rather than more direct cause-effect results.

This article isn't about "conspiracy theorists" either. Its a prefect example of how some people arrogantly pretend to have some kind of understanding of "conspircies" and lump anyone and everyone into the same catagory for believing to any degree. Yet their ego prevents them from seeing that those same shoes could fit their own feet because they don't have an actual argument based in evidence and examples, just the ill-formed opinion of a child like intelect.

I totally agree there could be a very logical reasonable explanation for some of the things I've experienced that has yet to be found. But with the equipment presently available that answer doesn't immediately jump out. Nor to other skeptical theories stand up to analysis.

You are only seeing what you want to see. If you didn't have this romanced view of GhostBusting you would be able to accept the simpler truths.

Go back and read my article here about "There are no ghost detectors!". If you do have an open mind on the subject I think it will fill in a lot of the gaps you seem to be making broad brush assumptions about.

No thanks. Obviously it would be a pathetic attempt at reasoning just like you have displayed here. While you can lump any and all "conspiracy theories" into one catagory and lump anyone and everyone who gives these theories consideration into one group which you paint as you like, you suggest I am making "BROAD BRUSH ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT" your ghost hunting??? And you have the rocks to suggest someone have an "open mind" when considering your fantasy world?

OK, "one more time" -

"Not everything, not even most things, that happen in the world are the result of a conspiracy of a vast network of people around the world that has been going on for centuries."

So what? Who said that is how it is in the first place? (hint; it wasn't me, so I suggest you don't imply that is my opinion).

[MasterPo]

Let me know when you prove ghosts rule the world.

You only show your own absurdity with posts like that.

Guess my article hit home for some people.

Bring off topic points.

Drag others not involved into the fray.

Try to make the speaker look like they don't have touch with reality.

But I'm not surprised. This is a common tactic from people who feel you having a greatly different from theirs. When you shake someone's core beliefs with the light of logic it can be unsettling for the person.

Thank you for helping make my points.

Edited September 7, 2008 by MasterPo

[Magnatude]

Interesting views.

I'd like to make a point, but to make it I need you all to look at this video here: Vice Guide to North Korea Video so you can understand my point.

A lot of people say that its crazy to think that everything within your life could be set up to look like one thing, being controlled by a group of people.

I believe this video get to the point that its totally possible for the government to "control" how the people function.

Once you see the video you may say, "well thats North Korea, not the United States", there is no way the Elites can control the people, subvert them to brainwashing, control what they see, hear and think.

North Korea (as the video shows) is one complex mindgame, a prime example that shows clearly that people can be manipulated (although this is an extreme example) and the entire population goes along for the ride, being part of the facade. So if someone says you are crazy to think that things can become manipulated, there is no way this can happen... The people of Korea are humans just like you and me, we all have dreams, we all have loves and fears, and we all can become manipulated.

People in power want to stay in power, North Korea's "spending" is quite a small drop in the bucket compared to the US, yet it is able to pursue its mind control operation over its people and its visitors. This government we have has tapped into the media, and controls the viewpoints presented on the Television and newspapers all over North America. If it wasnt for the Internet, we would only have these outlets for our viewpoints. As Monsanto has demonstrated with Fox news Investigations, we have an example of media being bent to the will of the Corporate entity. I do not know how people can say that what they see on Fox news and CNN have no media manipulation, how they cannot see it, how they will deny that there is a "puppeteer" at work.

However I look back at how I was easily guided through my early years, the first time I woke up was during 911, however it wasnt the actual attack that changed my view, it was the mailed Anthrax attacks and the sudden halting of the investigation that led me into the rabbit hole. I suddenly realized how powerful the media was, how easy it is to manipulate people. I ended up watching a lot less TV from then onwards.

That was only 7 years ago, I'm about to hit the age of 43.

A lot of these "conspiracy theories" should not be labelled as such, once you get an outside look they are more factual, its frightening to realize, your mind fights to say that manipulation cannot be, it fights the idea that you had been duped all this time, a feeling of shame.

So, I guess my point was, if it can be done to a country with 23 million people and a GNP of 40 Billion, can 305 million people be manipulated in a country with a GNP of 13,700 billion? (just look at the staggering population to GNP ratios). I'll finish leading the horse to water now.

[MasterPo]

So, I guess my point was, if it can be done to a country with 23 million people and a GNP of 40 Billion, can 305 million people be manipulated in a country with a GNP of 13,700 billion? (just look at the staggering population to GNP ratios). I'll finish leading the horse to water now.

I agree completely.

Never said it wasn't possible for the U.S. gov to manipulate the opinion of the population. Governments do it all the time. Secrets and information are kept from the general public. I'd imagine if you or I know some of those secrets we might be inclined to agree with the withholding. I'll leave it up to your imagination to work out the details of what and why.

But I don't think everything or even most things that are said or done are part of a manipulation/deception plan. And I don't think it's a grand plan hatched centuries ago by a small cadre of people bent on taking over the world. That's the point of this article.

[Magnatude]

I agree completely.

Hehe. I totally understand you Po, the post wasn't for you but for the hardliners who are adamant that there is absolutely no way that a society as large as ours cannot be manipulated.

I've enjoyed your posts your points and opinions

[MasterPo]

I've enjoyed your posts your points and opinions

Thank you.

ps- Like your avatar. That was a great show when I was a kid!

[el midgetron]

You only show your own absurdity with posts like that.

Go spend some time in the Ghost and haunting forum and vist their sites (sound familure?)

The point of my post is that you should take a look in the mirror. Every word of your article could be applied to people like you who chase ghosts. It would even be more true considering the activities people like you engauge in.

You started this thread to discuss why people believe in conspiracies. Well, its a completely vaild line of discussion to use comparative analysis of some other group's beliefs to create a context against which the conspiracy folk's beliefs can be measured. Since you have offered up this opinion of yours, I find a most interesting example in the juxtaposition of your own beliefs (considering what they are) against your interpitation of other peoples beliefs who you ridicule with your pseudo-intellectual argument.

Consistantly in this thread you have picked and choosed what you will respond to, nurturing your one sided argument. Certainly if you are above the "suspension of their logical thought" which you subscribe to the CTers, then your beliefs sould have a solid logical case. (1) However, how different is your argument -

"people work so hard and get so little satisfaction they would rather believe in vast secret organizations that control everything than the simple reality that life and the world holds no promises and guarantees nothing"

than this -

"people are so unable to come to terms with the reality of their existance and inevitable mortality, that they retreat to imaginary worlds of ghosts and haunted houses to deal with their fear of death and disappointing lives"

But I'm not surprised. This is a common tactic from people who feel you having a greatly different from theirs. When you shake someone's core beliefs with the light of logic it can be unsettling for the person.

Believe me I have read countless posts by people who employ your "logic". The key point which needs to be discussed here is the validity of argument you are putting forth. Until you can establish your argument is valid, its just a fart in the wind (you came here to prove your point right?). If your views of CTers has any substance to it, it should be able to withstand cross examination. You can begin by explaining answering question "(1)". Thanks in advance.

[el midgetron]

But I don't think everything or even most things that are said or done are part of a manipulation/deception plan. And I don't think it's a grand plan hatched centuries ago by a small cadre of people bent on taking over the world. That's the point of this article.

Agian, who said that "everything" is a conspiracy? That would be YOU, "look in the mirror".

How different is that than me "absurdly" saying people like you believe ghosts are everywhere and are running the world?

[MasterPo]

"people are so unable to come to terms with the reality of their existance and inevitable mortality, that they retreat to imaginary worlds of ghosts and haunted houses to deal with their fear of death and disappointing lives"

When did I say that???

If your views of CTers has any substance to it, it should be able to withstand cross examination. You can begin by explaining answering question "(1)".

I'm not on trial here.

My opinions on the paranormal, besides being completely irrelevant to this topic, are well documented on this site in both my articles and forum posts over the last 2 years.

If the best that can be done is to try to drag in a totally different subject then I think it's clear which POV has more merit.

You must be a trial lawyer by profession. If not I think you missed your calling.

Edited September 8, 2008 by MasterPo

[el midgetron]

When did I say that???

You didn't. You said this (in the bold) -

"people work so hard and get so little satisfaction they would rather believe in vast secret organizations that control everything than the simple reality that life and the world holds no promises and guarantees nothing"

**The question is how differnet are your words above (in the bold above) than these below -

"people are so unable to come to terms with the reality of their existance and inevitable mortality, that they retreat to imaginary worlds of ghosts and haunted houses to deal with their fear of death and disappointing lives"

I'm not on trial here.

My opinions on the paranormal, besides being completely irrelevant to this topic, are well documented on this site in both my articles and forum posts over the last 2 years.

Your article is about peoples beliefs. Your beliefs are relevent because they illustrate your sincerity and fidelity of your views. Imagine someone condeming an unwed mother as being immorral but in reality they themself have children out of wedlock. How does that effect the weight of their condemnation? By being critical of other peoples beliefs you should be prepared to defend your own beliefs the same as you are causing those who you are putting under the microscope to do so.

If you views are allready "well documented" elsewhere here its all the more reason why you should be willing to share them here.

If the best that can be done is to try to drag in a totally different subject then I think it's clear which POV has more merit.

I have offered a clear argument of why I think your beliefs are a vaild point of discussion. I wouldn't start claiming your POV has more merit unitl you begin to actually defend your POV.

Should I be so bold as to predict that you will not engauge in a logical discussion and will continue to refuse to answer the one question presented to you? I have seen it countless times, I hope you can prove to be an exception.

Edited September 8, 2008 by el midgetron

[MasterPo]

**The question is how differnet are your words above (in the bold above) than these below -

You are definately a trial lawyer! I recognize the tactic - try to bring in other though irrelevant topics as an overall "goes to the credibility of the wittness" attack. "E" for effort but I'm not biting.

If you want to discuss views of the paranormal start a new thread in the paranormal forum or write an article of your stance for here. You may be surpirsed.

Your article is about peoples beliefs. Your beliefs are relevent because they illustrate your sincerity and fidelity of your views.

Want to also know my views of Santa Clause, red meat, and potty training? Afterall, it goes to illustrate my sincerity and fidelity.

Imagine someone condeming an unwed mother as being immorral but in reality they themself have children out of wedlock.

I'd want to know more of the woman's circumstances: Did she get raped? Was she married and divorced before giving birth? Is she a widow? Did her husband/boyfriend walk out on her? Did she walk out on him? Amoung other thoughts that come to mind...

By being critical of other peoples beliefs you should be prepared to defend your own beliefs the same as you are causing those who you are putting under the microscope to do so.

I haven't put any one under a microscope. I didn't mention any names of people, organizations, websites etc. If you have taken my article as a personal afront that's beyond my control. Maybe at some level you aren't as sure of your standing on the subject as you think you are if you can take such a strong posture from one simple article?

If you views are allready "well documented" elsewhere here its all the more reason why you should be willing to share them here.

You're a smart boy and this site is well organized. You can easily find my other articles from the home page, search for my posts on the forums. Put that legal research training to work.

I wouldn't start claiming your POV has more merit unitl you begin to actually defend your POV.

I feel I have done an excellent job making my POV both in the article and the follow up posts. You should well know that a negative can't be proven. So as the one who believes there are far reaching (you prefer that over the word 'vast'?) conspiracies in the world it's really up to you to prove to me that is so, not for me to prove it isn't.

If you do a Google search you can find a conspiracy about everything: The government, food, water, medicine, clothing, schools, cars, air planes, banks, the stock market, farmers, oilers, truckers, fishermen, teachers, and on and on and on and on..... Each one points to this or that photo or audio or transcript of something or news article in some little backwater newspaper or burried on page 30 of the Times, etc etc as proof.

One more time - I never said there are no conspiracies. I never said governments, businesses and/or people don't try to manipulate the masses. But I did say that not everything and in fact the majority of the events in life - the good as well as the bad - are not the result of conspiracies nor of secret conspiritorial groups handed down throughout the ages as some grand scheme to control the world under some single authority.

Who knows - we may yet someday have a united world. Might not be a bad thing too. Certianly is imagined in a great many fiction and science fiction works, provided humanity could evolve beyond our petty disputes over lines on a map or words in a religious text.

232 years ago 13 seperate colonies come together to form a new nation. I don't think anyone claimed it was a conspiracy to rob the colonies of their indepenence and freedoms though in hind-sight I think it could be labled that way if you look at events with those kinds of glasses.

Should I be so bold as to predict that you will not engauge in a logical discussion and will continue to refuse to answer the one question presented to you? I have seen it countless times, I hope you can prove to be an exception.

Start a thread in the appropriate forum and we'll intellectually joust. Probably would be very interesting. It's as simple as that.

But that's not what this article and responses are for.

Edited September 8, 2008 by MasterPo

[el midgetron]

You are definately a trial lawyer! I recognize the tactic - try to bring in other though irrelevant topics as an overall "goes to the credibility of the wittness" attack. "E" for effort but I'm not biting.

If you want to discuss views of the paranormal start a new thread in the paranormal forum or write an article of your stance for here. You may be surpirsed.

So, you are suggesting that your "logic" is above the entire judicial process? Good one Matlock

I don't want to discuss the paranormal. I thought it was you who wanted to discuss the belief systems of various groups. I guess it was a limited discussion you were really after and not an open intelectual one.

Want to also know my views of Santa Clause, red meat, and potty training? Afterall, it goes to illustrate my sincerity and fidelity.

Well, I only asked about your GhostBusting beliefs because it was something you had allready put in the public domain. However, if you think further details about your personal beliefs and potty training are useful to the discussion, then please share them but only if you are willing to answer the initial questions asked of you. Otherwise, this is obviously a tactic to aviod an honest version of the discussion you started.

I'd want to know more of the woman's circumstances: Did she get raped? Was she married and divorced before giving birth? Is she a widow? Did her husband/boyfriend walk out on her? Did she walk out on him? Amoung other thoughts that come to mind...

Very interesting questions. I think its most telling how the very first place your mind goes is "rape". Infact, none of the options you suggest for this poor woman have any positive elements at all to them.

In the context of the hypothetical question it was posed in, what does the womans circumstances really matter? And if you are so interested in this woman's circumstances, why have you not also inquired about the person's who she was condemed by circumstances?

I haven't put any one under a microscope. I didn't mention any names of people, organizations, websites etc. If you have taken my article as a personal afront that's beyond my control. Maybe at some level you aren't as sure of your standing on the subject as you think you are if you can take such a strong posture from one simple article?

Thats exactly why you called my comment "absured". I am more than willing to defend my views, you seem anything but.

You have lumped an untold number of people togther under that microscope.

You're a smart boy and this site is well organized. You can easily find my other articles from the home page, search for my posts on the forums. Put that legal research training to work.

Not according to you or this article. I guess you version of smart means "suspending all logic of thought".

Why woulod I bother searching your other posts when you still haven't defended your views here?

I feel I have done an excellent job making my POV both in the article and the follow up posts. You should well know that a negative can't be proven. So as the one who believes there are far reaching (you prefer that over the word 'vast'?) conspiracies in the world it's really up to you to prove to me that is so, not for me to prove it isn't.

An "excellet job"? I have asked one, one simple question of you and you refuse to answer it. So, in your own words, you "feel" like you have done an "excellent" job, even though you haven't even begun to do your job. Answer my question to you. This is the third time I have asked and I hope you don't attempt to play dumb again (its marked with a "(1)").

If you do a Google search you can find a conspiracy about everything: The government, food, water, medicine, clothing, schools, cars, air planes, banks, the stock market, farmers, oilers, truckers, fishermen, teachers, and on and on and on and on..... Each one points to this or that photo or audio or transcript of something or news article in some little backwater newspaper or burried on page 30 of the Times, etc etc as proof.

So what? I can point to countless sources where people think every blurry dot in a photo is a ghost. According to your argument presented in this article, I should be able to subscribe that same crap onto your phoney baloney ghost hunting techniques.

One more time - I never said there are no conspiracies. I never said governments, businesses and/or people don't try to manipulate the masses. But I did say that not everything and in fact the majority of the events in life - the good as well as the bad - are not the result of conspiracies nor of secret conspiritorial groups handed down throughout the ages as some grand scheme to control the world under some single authority.

Who knows - we may yet someday have a united world. Might not be a bad thing too. Certianly is imagined in a great many fiction and science fiction works, provided humanity could evolve beyond our petty disputes over lines on a map or words in a religious text.

In response to the bold -

One more time - I never said there are no ghosts. I never said hauntings, spookies and/or spirits don't try to manipulate the experiances of paranormal investigators. But I did say that not everything and in fact the majority of the events in life - the good as well as the bad - are not the result of ghosts nor are created by paranormal elements caused by the ghosts of dead people gathering over the ages as some grand scheme to spook the world under some scarey agenda of spookyness.

232 years ago 13 seperate colonies come together to form a new nation. I don't think anyone claimed it was a conspiracy to rob the colonies of their indepenence and freedoms though in hind-sight I think it could be labled that way if you look at events with those kinds of glasses.

Sorry but it sounds like you need to brush up on your American history. The very concept of the American revolution was to re-claim their "independance and freedoms". Its a basic idea even school children are taught. Can you explain how if no-one was trying to "rob" the colonist of their freedoms, why they all "suspended their logic of thought" and fought for their independance?

Start a thread in the appropriate forum and we'll intellectually joust. Probably would be very interesting. It's as simple as that.

But that's not what this article and responses are for.

I am not looking to "intellectually joust" with anyone. It was you who posted this article not me. Not sure why you would want another topic started for discussion when you cannot meet the requirements of this discussion.

[el midgetron]

Should I be so bold as to predict that you will not engauge in a logical discussion and will continue to refuse to answer the one question presented to you? I have seen it countless times, I hope you can prove to be an exception.

lol So typical. Never would have guessed lol

[Oen Anderson]

I am reminded of the saying, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt". It is my opinion that MasterPo should actually read a well written conspiracy book (Jim Marrs, Rise of the Fourth Reich), because it is obvious to me he needs to do more reading and less talking smack about things he doesn't know about.