no, I'm just a repetitive chatbot myself too.

Post a reply to this message

> no, I'm just a repetitive chatbot myself too.

I'm not repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot 
repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! 
ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti 
CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot 
repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! 
ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti 
CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot 
repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! 
ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti 
CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot 
repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! 
ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti 
CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot 
repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! 
ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK! ot repetiti CLOCK!...

Post a reply to this message

On 5/9/2011 7:45 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcablecom>  wrote:
>> On 5/9/2011 9:10 AM, Darren New wrote:
>>> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2240#comic
>>>
>>> Funny how that works for creationists too.
>>>
>> Except that creationists tend to skip step 3, and just go around
>> claiming they have some "new and never heard" thing that proves their
>> points. You know, as in, "old, tried multiple times, and yet they are
>> somehow oblivious to how many other people use the same assertions".
>
> I think that's the 1000th time you say something along those lines in this
> forum.  This week alone.  What would be of atheists if there were non-believers,
> huh?  My guess is that they'd be pebble collectors, obsessively scrutinizing
> every cranny and nook after more shiny pebbles.
>
Gee.. Cranky much? And, no, this forum is not the only place I hang out 
at. The one that I hang out at more is one where I *see* these sorts of, 
"I am sure you haven't heard this argument before!", people show up to 
drop nonsense assertions about everything from 9/11 truthers, to 
creationism, depending on just which subject happens to be under 
discussion at the time. An obscure post on the subject of conspiracy 
theories is hardly the same as a 5 page article on the formation of 
dendrites (or some such), and the underlying evolution of the genome to 
produce those, but its precisely the sort of place you get some moron 
showing up to proclaim that their dog never gave birth to a cat, so 
somehow the entire article is worthless nonsense. And that is just when 
the topic is biology, not, "Why are we still fighting some of these 
wars?", which sometimes the blogger posts.

On that one, I think he is missing the point BTW. He calls it a war on 
an idea. Its not, its a war on a method, one that has been used, 
successfully, against clinics, less successfully against animal labs, 
and which people will keep using, and others ignoring, as long as the 
apparent goal is something they agree with, even to the point where they 
refuse to call it the same thing. You can't fight an idea. But you can't 
pretend that people don't use the method, and ignore that its in use, 
and who supports it either.

So, being a subject I am familiar with, I should not state the obvious, 
with relation to someone else's comment on the subject in question?

Oh, and I hate fishing.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 10 May 2011 23:37:06 +0200, Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom>  
wrote:

> On 5/9/2011 7:45 PM, nemesis wrote:

> Oh, and I hate fishing.

Me too :)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 09 May 2011 18:10:18 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2240#comic
>

Does anyone know where to find that website about how some-one made fake  
lasers on the 9-11 footage?

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 5/11/2011 9:15, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Does anyone know where to find that website about how some-one made fake
> lasers on the 9-11 footage?

You mean, beyond putting "fake lasers 9-11" into google?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2240#comic

> Funny how that works for creationists too.

  It's not surprising. Conspiracy theories have all the same features and
symptoms as fundamentalist religions. So much, in fact, that I do not only
consider a conspiracy theory *like* a religion, but more over *a* religion.
On of my standard responses to a conspiracy theorist troll is "I'm not
interested in your religion". Because that's what it is, pure and simple.

http://warp.povusers.org/grrr/ConspiracyTheoryReligions.html

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 11 May 2011 19:05:38 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> fake lasers 9-11

I tried that, but I only got the conspiracy theories.
I'm looking for the one explaining that the e-mail that went around  
showing showing laser was actually an indy movie turned hoax.


-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 11/05/2011 19:55, Warp wrote:

>    It's not surprising. Conspiracy theories have all the same features and
> symptoms as fundamentalist religions. So much, in fact, that I do not only
> consider a conspiracy theory *like* a religion, but more over *a* religion.

I was expecting this to end with "because religion *is* a conspiracy 
theory"... ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 5/12/2011 12:59 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 19:55, Warp wrote:
>
>> It's not surprising. Conspiracy theories have all the same features and
>> symptoms as fundamentalist religions. So much, in fact, that I do not
>> only
>> consider a conspiracy theory *like* a religion, but more over *a*
>> religion.
>
> I was expecting this to end with "because religion *is* a conspiracy
> theory"... ;-)

Well.. What was it one of the characters by Mark Twain said, something 
like, "Things are always run by a minority. The reason is that most 
people either find, or convince themselves that there exists, benefit in 
it for themselves (even if that is only that they are not currently the 
victims), or are afraid of the consequences of apposing those with the 
power (because they know they can easily become such)." It doesn't take 
much of a conspiracy to control people, if people never wake up and 
realize that they are losing as much as what the people you where a 
afraid to stand up for are, and that they really do outnumber the ones 
that are doing it. Since religion's purpose tends to be to control what 
people do, think, say, etc., of course it is a conspiracy, but its the 
sort of loose type, that can start out by accident, and not always with 
negative intentions.

In such cases, you simply have to hope its a benign one, and gets 
replaced, before it becomes malignant, sort of like cancers.

Both are attempts to build, while generally failing, a consistent, and 
plausible, structure, around which ideas, beliefs, and semi-random, 
unconnected, facts are framed. Its Rube Goldberg, without the 
plausibility that the result would actually work, from the stance of an 
actual engineer. But, as someone once said, I don't remember which one, 
paraphrasing, "Humans have a need for answers, and will be satisfied 
with bad ones, if they don't have good ones."

So long as people refuse to look for the good answers, or believe them 
when found, we will have a mess. But, another commonality between 
conspiracy theories and religion is that most only survive well if they 
present, and one of their premises, that good answers, which fail to 
support the original premise(s), cannot be trusted, nor can those that 
suggest them.

Post a reply to this message