Two of the interviewees (Drs Hannah and Hattotuwa) were from the >Disinformation Project, which sets out to research the details of how >falsehoods start and spread.
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information. They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
(paranoid rubbish) ...
Two of the interviewees (Drs Hannah and Hattotuwa) were from the >>Disinformation Project, which sets out to research the details of how >>falsehoods start and spread.
And you believe their nonsense, of course.
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Your nonsense will continue until either
(1) there is a weeks-long electricity blackout, thanks to those who
share your mindless politics, or
(2) you get struck down by something caused by the Covid vaccine.
Be glad I responded. Really, I can't be bothered with you trolls
anymore. Apathy has become a virtue in the 2020's.
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are >told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information. >They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at least >he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are >>told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information. >>They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of
mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your
own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving
the planet"!
On Mon, 20 May 2024, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Not to mention the damage to the planet of the manufacture, servicing and disposal of the components. Nearly always ignored.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy ... (etc)
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
Gas, coal, hydro, geothermal, nuclear -- all these do not require
backup. They are honest reliable power generators.
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar >>panels . . .
For you Greenies, slave labour is slave labour until it ain't.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy ... (etc)
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar
panels . . .
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Any chance that you could actually address the subject? Thought not!
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they >>>are
told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of >>>information.
They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at >>>least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of >>mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your
own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >>manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving
the planet"!
Do you have any main-stream support for those assertions, Willy?
Have a look at:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-solar-power-capacity-rises-552-2023-2024-01-26/
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/020824-infographic-china-solar-capacity-coal-electricity-renewable-energy-hydro-wind#:~:text=Infographic%3A%20China's%20solar%20capacity%20growth%20i
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-was-top-driver-of-chinas-economic-growth-in-2023/
https://www.ecowatch.com/china-new-solar-capacity-2023.html
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/china-solar-energy-exports.html
https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chinas-solar-power-capacity-soared-55-2023-and-wind-capacity-21.html
But yes they do still use coal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/china-coal/
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/sinopec-forecasts-chinas-coal-consumption-peak-around-2025-2023-12-28/
So what are the chances that Shane Jones will enable New Zealand to
import a few shiploads of coal at world peak prices?
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar
panels . . .
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Any chance that you could actually address the subject? Thought not!
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they >>>>are
told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of >>>>information.
They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at >>>>least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of >>>mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your >>>own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >>>manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving >>>the planet"!
Do you have any main-stream support for those assertions, Willy?
Have a look at:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-solar-power-capacity-rises-552-2023-2024-01-26/
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/020824-infographic-china-solar-capacity-coal-electricity-renewable-energy-hydro-wind#:~:text=Infographic%3A%20China's%20solar%20capacity%20growth%20i
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-was-top-driver-of-chinas-economic-growth-in-2023/
https://www.ecowatch.com/china-new-solar-capacity-2023.html
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/china-solar-energy-exports.html >> >>https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chinas-solar-power-capacity-soared-55-2023-and-wind-capacity-21.html
But yes they do still use coal:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/china-coal/
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/sinopec-forecasts-chinas-coal-consumption-peak-around-2025-2023-12-28/
So what are the chances that Shane Jones will enable New Zealand to
import a few shiploads of coal at world peak prices?
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar >>panels . . .
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
[email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2024, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:Not to mention the damage to the planet of the manufacture, servicing and disposal of the components. Nearly always ignored.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy ... (etc)
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are >>intent on deceiving us.
Gas, coal, hydro, geothermal, nuclear -- all these do not require
backup. They are honest reliable power generators.
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar >>>panels . . .
For you Greenies, slave labour is slave labour until it ain't.
On Mon, 20 May 2024, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy ... (etc)
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
Gas, coal, hydro, geothermal, nuclear -- all these do not require
backup. They are honest reliable power generators.
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar >>panels . . .
For you Greenies, slave labour is slave labour until it ain't.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:08:53 -0000 (UTC), TonyThank you for using my words - I know how hard it is for you to generate any of your own.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:Any chance that you could actually address the subject? Thought not!
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they >>>>>are
told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of >>>>>information.
They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at >>>>>least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of >>>>mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your >>>>own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >>>>manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving >>>>the planet"!
Do you have any main-stream support for those assertions, Willy?
Have a look at:
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-solar-power-capacity-rises-552-2023-2024-01-26/
https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/020824-infographic-china-solar-capacity-coal-electricity-renewable-energy-hydro-wind#:~:text=Infographic%3A%20China's%20solar%20capacity%20growth%20i
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-clean-energy-was-top-driver-of-chinas-economic-growth-in-2023/
https://www.ecowatch.com/china-new-solar-capacity-2023.html
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/07/business/china-solar-energy-exports.html >>> >>>https://www.enerdata.net/publications/daily-energy-news/chinas-solar-power-capacity-soared-55-2023-and-wind-capacity-21.html
But yes they do still use coal: >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China
https://www.worldometers.info/coal/china-coal/
https://www.sustainabilitybynumbers.com/p/china-coal-plants
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/sinopec-forecasts-chinas-coal-consumption-peak-around-2025-2023-12-28/
So what are the chances that Shane Jones will enable New Zealand to >>>import a few shiploads of coal at world peak prices?
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar >>>panels . . .
To use part of a post from above, you appear to be a perfect example
of the gullible fools who believe what they are told and never dare
(or care enough) to look at other sources of information.
The question is, who do you listen to get so much wrong so often,Do keep up - I did not make those assertions. why don't you address the author of those. Oh, sorry - you don't do that do you? No!
Tony?
Do keep on topic . . . and see if you can justify the assertion in (5)
and (6) above . . .
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:You are using faulty logic. But that is not a first. The question is whether a theory is in fact a conspiracy or not. All else is rhetoric. People like you believe that if the government says it is so, then it is so, and therefore all else is conspiracy. The trouble is, you are actually the conspiracy.
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are
told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information.
They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of >>mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your
own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >>manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving
the planet"!
Do you have any main-stream support for those assertions, Willy?
[email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are >told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information. >They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
(paranoid rubbish) ...
Two of the interviewees (Drs Hannah and Hattotuwa) were from the >>>Disinformation Project, which sets out to research the details of how >>>falsehoods start and spread.
And you believe their nonsense, of course.
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Your nonsense will continue until either
(1) there is a weeks-long electricity blackout, thanks to those who
share your mindless politics, or
(2) you get struck down by something caused by the Covid vaccine.
Be glad I responded. Really, I can't be bothered with you trolls
anymore. Apathy has become a virtue in the 2020's.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at least >he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
Just been watching the doco �Web Of Chaos� on TV1, looking at all the >misinformation (accidental/careless factual errors) and disinformation >(deliberate fabrication and lying) happening online, and its relevance to
NZ.
Two of the interviewees (Drs Hannah and Hattotuwa)...
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:Who are your referring to as "People like you"? Most people do not
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:You are using faulty logic. But that is not a first. The question is whether a >theory is in fact a conspiracy or not. All else is rhetoric.
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >>also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>believing in others.
People like you believe that if the government says it is so, then it is
so, and therefore all else is conspiracy.
The trouble is, you are actually the conspiracy.Perhaps you should explain that - one person cannot be all the
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro ><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >>also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>believing in others.
How about you?
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will
"continue to be the single source of truth"?
Bill.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:29:01 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]>
wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are
told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information.
They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of >>>mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your >>>own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >>>manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving >>>the planet"!
Do you have any main-stream support for those assertions, Willy?
Why does "main-stream" support matter?
What makes them so credible?
Bill.
On Mon, 20 May 2024, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/china-renewable-energy ... (etc)
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
Gas, coal, hydro, geothermal, nuclear -- all these do not require
backup. They are honest reliable power generators.
Perhaps New Zealand would be better off importing a shipload of solar >panels . . .
For you Greenies, slave labour is slave labour until it ain't.
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
A quiet reflection on the Covid-19 narrative demostrates this point.
More importantly it is the underlying arguement that these "conspiracy theories" need to be shut down, gaslight and etc.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
And a reasonable solution is batteries. They are a thing that have been >invented. There are companies that manufacture them. It is possible to
buy them and connect them to the grid. Whats more, companies in many >countries have in fact purchased batteries and connected them to the
grid. They even make money doing this! They buy power when its cheap and
sell it back to the grid when power is expensive.
On Mon, 20 May 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
And a reasonable solution is batteries. They are a thing that have been >>invented. There are companies that manufacture them. It is possible to
buy them and connect them to the grid. Whats more, companies in many >>countries have in fact purchased batteries and connected them to the
grid. They even make money doing this! They buy power when its cheap and >>sell it back to the grid when power is expensive.
This would be fine if they could be reasonably bought and used for the >purpose. But you can't. They are too dear and if everybody tried to
buy them, their price would skyrocket because of all the rare elements >required to make them, limiting production. Also the insurance costs
for them would be impossible because of the high likelihood of total >immolation -- when one of the battery packs catches fire, the whole
lot will go up in a record-setting conflagration.
It ain't gonna happen. Fossil fuelds are at a record-high consumption >nowadays, see: >https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/20/climate-change-reporters-call-the-end-of-coal-and-gas-in-the-middle-of-record-demand/
... and your "reasonable solution" of batteries is just another >pie-in-the-sky unicorn fart.
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will
"continue to be the single source of truth"?
On Tue, 21 May 2024, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
Lake Onslow plans were for a water battery. In some other countries
excess power is used to pump water upwards to keep a dam filled or to
fill another dam as an energy storage battery.
Guess what, water evaporates. A truly pie-in-the-sky solution.
Lake Onslow plans were for a water battery. In some other countries
excess power is used to pump water upwards to keep a dam filled or to
fill another dam as an energy storage battery.
On Mon, 20 May 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
And a reasonable solution is batteries. They are a thing that have been >invented. There are companies that manufacture them. It is possible to
buy them and connect them to the grid. Whats more, companies in many >countries have in fact purchased batteries and connected them to the
grid. They even make money doing this! They buy power when its cheap and >sell it back to the grid when power is expensive.
This would be fine if they could be reasonably bought and used for the purpose. But you can't.
They are too dear and if everybody tried to
buy them, their price would skyrocket because of all the rare elements required to make them, limiting production.
Also the insurance costs
for them would be impossible because of the high likelihood of total immolation -- when one of the battery packs catches fire, the whole
lot will go up in a record-setting conflagration.
It ain't gonna happen. Fossil fuelds are at a record-high consumption nowadays, see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/20/climate-change-reporters-call-the-end-of-coal-and-gas-in-the-middle-of-record-demand/
... and your "reasonable solution" of batteries is just another pie-in-the-sky unicorn fart.
But there are alternative battery technologies that: have been around a
long time, have zero fire risk and do not require any rare minerals. For >example, this company has started selling nickel-hydrogen batteries for
grid storage purposes: https://enervenue.com/
On Mon, 20 May 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
And a reasonable solution is batteries. They are a thing that have been >>invented. There are companies that manufacture them. It is possible to
buy them and connect them to the grid. Whats more, companies in many >>countries have in fact purchased batteries and connected them to the
grid. They even make money doing this! They buy power when its cheap and >>sell it back to the grid when power is expensive.
This would be fine if they could be reasonably bought and used for the purpose. But you can't. They are too dear and if everybody tried to
buy them, their price would skyrocket because of all the rare elements required to make them, limiting production. Also the insurance costs
for them would be impossible because of the high likelihood of total immolation -- when one of the battery packs catches fire, the whole
lot will go up in a record-setting conflagration.
It ain't gonna happen. Fossil fuelds are at a record-high consumption nowadays, see: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/20/climate-change-reporters-call-the-end-of-coal-and-gas-in-the-middle-of-record-demand/
... and your "reasonable solution" of batteries is just another pie-in-the-sky unicorn fart.
The trouble is, you are actually the conspiracy.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >>>also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>believing in others.
How about you?
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will >>"continue to be the single source of truth"?
Bill.
I don't think she was talking solely about the government in the
statement that included that phrase - my memory is that she was
referring to the advice being given by the wider team that had been
assembled to give information advice
- it included many public
servants, some university people, as well as politicians, and it was
talking about a broad range of things, including statistics such as
number of cases and numbers in hospital. Are you able to give a
reference to that phrase being used?
On Mon, 20 May 2024 04:38:28 -0000 (UTC), TonyI was answering Lawrence. Is that a concept that is too complex for you?
<[email protected]> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:Who are your referring to as "People like you"?
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:You are using faulty logic. But that is not a first. The question is whether >>a
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >>>also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>believing in others.
theory is in fact a conspiracy or not. All else is rhetoric.
People like you believe that if the government says it is so, then it is >>so, and therefore all else is conspiracy.
Most people do not
believe everything that the government says. Polling companies have in
the past measured the extent that people do believe what the
government says. Most people will compare what the government says
with what other people say in relation to the same issues - for most
issues there are "some people" that are better trusted than others.
The trouble is, you are actually the conspiracy.Perhaps you should explain that - one person cannot be all the
conspiracies that it is fairly well accepted have moved around the
world in recent years.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are correct, I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start says it all.
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >> > also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways?
Birds aren't real - they're all secret government drones built to spy on
us? Climate change is a hoax pushed by what must be the largest cabal
ever to have existed all to make money by encouraging us to buy less oil
and gas not more? Chemtrails are actually a secret mind control and/or >weather manipulation program by the US government? Some kid on 4chan was >right about secret cannibal politicians who like pizza?
A quiet reflection on the Covid-19 narrative demostrates this point.
Ah yes, covid-19 is a secret... what? Whats the conspiracy here? Oh
right, Bill gates and his 5G chips or something. I want a refund
actually - this one didn't work. My 5G reception is no better than it
was before.
More importantly it is the underlying arguement that these "conspiracy
theories" need to be shut down, gaslight and etc.
These conspiracy theories are mostly all clearly absurd and easily
disproven. The amazing thing is that people keep on falling for them. I >assume at least part of it is intentional, or perhaps starts out that
way. That it is more comforting to believe that mass shootings are
actually staged using crisis actors rather than being a real thing with
real dead people. And so people adopt this belief and double down on it
when questioned or presented with clear evidence to the contrary.
The problem is that belief in some conspiracies can cause harm. Either
to the believers when they're sitting on a home made rocket to try and
prove the earth is flat, or to other people when a believer shoots up a
pizza restaurant or tries to bring down the power grid. Or they can just
be a general nuisance - like taking over community meetings because
having everything I need within 15 minutes walk is a secret government >control thing or something else equally absurd.
Not all conspiracy theories and conspiracy enthusiasts are harmless. I
don't care about the harmless ones; people can believe the moon landings
were faked all they like. But the harmful or disruptive ones are
concerning.
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:07:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
[email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote: >>>(paranoid rubbish) ...Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are >>told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information. >>They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
Two of the interviewees (Drs Hannah and Hattotuwa) were from the >>>>Disinformation Project, which sets out to research the details of how >>>>falsehoods start and spread.
And you believe their nonsense, of course.
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Your nonsense will continue until either
(1) there is a weeks-long electricity blackout, thanks to those who
share your mindless politics, or
(2) you get struck down by something caused by the Covid vaccine.
Be glad I responded. Really, I can't be bothered with you trolls >>>anymore. Apathy has become a virtue in the 2020's.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at >>least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
Here's a song he reminds me of lol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BquNW53RqL0
Bill.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR wrote:Well, that is exactly what she said. Look it up.
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will
"continue to be the single source of truth"?
I never heard that report. Where did you get it?
If you are referring to our country’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, >remember that we continued to hear from several independent experts right >through all the levels of lockdown. And they didn’t always agree with what >the Government was doing.
Compare that with the USA, where the Government did its best to muzzle the >scientists who were pointing out that the right-wingers’ strategy to play >down the seriousness of the issue wasn’t working.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 00:47:28 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:There is no proof of that, yet you spew it out every so often with gleeful frothing at the mouth.
On Tue, 21 May 2024, Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
Lake Onslow plans were for a water battery. In some other countries >>>excess power is used to pump water upwards to keep a dam filled or to >>>fill another dam as an energy storage battery.
Guess what, water evaporates. A truly pie-in-the-sky solution.
Guess water evaporates in a cycle - once it falls to the ground some
sinks into the earth, but water in rivers, and streams, and lakes, and
the sea all have evaporation. The size of a storage pond makes
insignificant difference to the amount of evaporation - I doubt it
would be enough to notice any difference in rainfall . . .
So try again, Willy Nilly.
The real problem with our having to burn coal to ensure we have
continuous electricity supply is that the system increases profit to
the generators every time there is an emergency - some of them have
been deferring new solar and wind production (which in some cases has >resource consent) to keep the dividend gravy train going - don't
expect the current government to do anything to reduce your
electricity bill, Willy!
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
On Mon, 20 May 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on
the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must
be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are
intent on deceiving us.
And a reasonable solution is batteries. They are a thing that have been
invented. There are companies that manufacture them. It is possible to
buy them and connect them to the grid. Whats more, companies in many
countries have in fact purchased batteries and connected them to the
grid. They even make money doing this! They buy power when its cheap and
sell it back to the grid when power is expensive.
This would be fine if they could be reasonably bought and used for the
purpose. But you can't.
Wikipedia lists at least 20 grid connected batteries of 100MW or greater
- thats quite a few for something that can't be reasonably bought.
They are too dear and if everybody tried to
buy them, their price would skyrocket because of all the rare elements
required to make them, limiting production.
The elements are not so rare as to make the idea impractical, and
various companies are working to reduce the need for these minerals or
to better enable the recycling of these batteries reducing the need to extract them from the ground in such large quantities.
Also the insurance costs
for them would be impossible because of the high likelihood of total
immolation -- when one of the battery packs catches fire, the whole
lot will go up in a record-setting conflagration.
You (or some website you read) seem to be greatly overestimating the likelihood of lithium-ion batteries catching fire or the industries
inability to mitigate this risk.
But there are alternative battery technologies that: have been around a
long time, have zero fire risk and do not require any rare minerals. For example, this company has started selling nickel-hydrogen batteries for
grid storage purposes: https://enervenue.com/
It ain't gonna happen. Fossil fuelds are at a record-high consumption
nowadays, see:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2024/05/20/climate-change-reporters-call-the-end-of-coal-and-gas-in-the-middle-of-record-demand/
... and your "reasonable solution" of batteries is just another
pie-in-the-sky unicorn fart.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >>>>also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>>believing in others.
How about you?
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will >>>"continue to be the single source of truth"?
Bill.
I don't think she was talking solely about the government in the
statement that included that phrase - my memory is that she was
referring to the advice being given by the wider team that had been >>assembled to give information advice
Your memory is deliberately faulty - she was referring to the government. Her >and her ministers.
- it included many public
servants, some university people, as well as politicians, and it was >>talking about a broad range of things, including statistics such as
number of cases and numbers in hospital. Are you able to give a
reference to that phrase being used?
On Mon, 20 May 2024 04:38:28 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:More gobbledygook from an expert.
The trouble is, you are actually the conspiracy.
Yes, I am part of the conspiracy. So is all of reality. Science and logic >themselves are just part of the conspiracy against the ideology of the >conspiracy-theory nutters, designed to make them look bad.
On 2024-05-21, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
On Mon, 20 May 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
The big lie of wind & solar's "cheapness" is because they still
require 100% backup from other generators for when the sun doesn't
shine and the wind doesn't blow. Therefore they are piggy-backing on >> >> the others -- and the cost of maintaining that backup generation must >> >> be added to the wind & solar accounting, but never is by those who are >> >> intent on deceiving us.
And a reasonable solution is batteries. They are a thing that have been >> >invented. There are companies that manufacture them. It is possible to
buy them and connect them to the grid. Whats more, companies in many
countries have in fact purchased batteries and connected them to the
grid. They even make money doing this! They buy power when its cheap and >> >sell it back to the grid when power is expensive.
This would be fine if they could be reasonably bought and used for the
purpose. But you can't.
Wikipedia lists at least 20 grid connected batteries of 100MW or greater
- thats quite a few for something that can't be reasonably bought.
Batteries storage engery, so the size needs to be stated as such, ideally Joules. However, the Wh has taken over for common use.
On Tue, 21 May 2024, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
But there are alternative battery technologies that: have been around a >long time, have zero fire risk and do not require any rare minerals. For >example, this company has started selling nickel-hydrogen batteries for >grid storage purposes: https://enervenue.com/
That's an interesting site but "where's the beef"? Nickel-hydrogen
batteries are very very expensive, right? To mass-produce them for
grid backup is a whole different ballgame.
Don't get me wrong, I would be delighted if battery solutions worked
and were cost-effective. But I live in the real world.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways?Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start says it all.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR wrote:
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will
"continue to be the single source of truth"?
I never heard that report. Where did you get it?
If you are referring to our country�s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, >remember that we continued to hear from several independent experts right >through all the levels of lockdown. And they didn�t always agree with what >the Government was doing.
Compare that with the USA, where the Government did its best to muzzle the >scientists who were pointing out that the right-wingers� strategy to play >down the seriousness of the issue wasn�t working.
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:57:12 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 10:29:01 +1200, Rich80105 <[email protected]> >>wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 21:42:32 GMT, [email protected] (Willy Nilly) wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024, Tony <[email protected]> wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
(1) Russia, Russia, Russia (Trump related)
(2) that Covid vaccines are good for you.
(3) that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinfo.
(4) that Biden is *not* the most corrupt US prez ever.
And I could stretch this list endlessly, but can't be bothered.
Lawrence is a perfect example of the gullible fools who believe what they are
told and never dare (or care enough) to look at other sources of information.
They shall inherit the hell that they are causing.
He (knowingly?) confuses open-mindedness with conspiracy theory. Well at least
he will go down knowing he toed the line. Reminds me of a song!
I wonder which song that would be. Anyway, even though my list of >>>>mainstream disinfo can stretch into the hundreds, I'll add these 2:
(5) that wind & solar are the cheapest source of grid electricity.
(6) carbon accounting where you approach "net zero" by destroying your >>>>own industries by offshoring them all to China, whose coal-powered >>>>manufacturing is not counted in your calculations. Thanks for "saving >>>>the planet"!
Do you have any main-stream support for those assertions, Willy?
Why does "main-stream" support matter?
What makes them so credible?
Bill.
Fair point, Bill - would "credible support" suit you better?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >>correct,
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory >> >> >are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways?
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start >>says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
On Tue, 21 May 2024 07:19:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is fact. You are lying,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are >>>>>also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>>>believing in others.
How about you?
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will >>>>"continue to be the single source of truth"?
Bill.
I don't think she was talking solely about the government in the >>>statement that included that phrase - my memory is that she was
referring to the advice being given by the wider team that had been >>>assembled to give information advice
Your memory is deliberately faulty - she was referring to the government. Her >>and her ministers.
No, you are yet again wrong. But I accept that you will claim that if
is not fact but just your opinion . . .
- it included many public
servants, some university people, as well as politicians, and it was >>>talking about a broad range of things, including statistics such as >>>number of cases and numbers in hospital. Are you able to give a
reference to that phrase being used?
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 07:19:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is fact. You are lying,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>>>>believing in others.
How about you?
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will >>>>>"continue to be the single source of truth"?
Bill.
I don't think she was talking solely about the government in the >>>>statement that included that phrase - my memory is that she was >>>>referring to the advice being given by the wider team that had been >>>>assembled to give information advice
Your memory is deliberately faulty - she was referring to the government. Her
and her ministers.
No, you are yet again wrong. But I accept that you will claim that if
is not fact but just your opinion . . .
Quote"We will continue to be your single source of truth." We means government >because it was stated in parliament - it cannot mean anything else.
From Ardern in parliament, see >https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20200902_050580000/1-question-no-1-prime-minister
Either you or Hansard are lying. Well?????
So my recollection was fairly accurate. Thanks for the reference to- it included many public
servants, some university people, as well as politicians, and it was >>>>talking about a broad range of things, including statistics such as >>>>number of cases and numbers in hospital. Are you able to give a >>>>reference to that phrase being used?
On Tue, 21 May 2024 21:42:37 -0000 (UTC), TonyTotal bullshit.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, 21 May 2024 07:19:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo it is fact. You are lying,
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2024 17:28:33 +1200, BR <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 23:44:18 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro >>>>>><[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory >>>>>>>are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>>>>>believing in others.
How about you?
Did you believe Ardern when she announced that the government will >>>>>>"continue to be the single source of truth"?
Bill.
I don't think she was talking solely about the government in the >>>>>statement that included that phrase - my memory is that she was >>>>>referring to the advice being given by the wider team that had been >>>>>assembled to give information advice
Your memory is deliberately faulty - she was referring to the government. >>>>Her
and her ministers.
No, you are yet again wrong. But I accept that you will claim that if
is not fact but just your opinion . . .
Quote"We will continue to be your single source of truth." We means >>government
because it was stated in parliament - it cannot mean anything else.
From Ardern in parliament, see >>https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hansard-debates/rhr/document/HansS_20200902_050580000/1-question-no-1-prime-minister
Either you or Hansard are lying. Well?????
"I stand by my statement in its entirety. Some weeks ago, I was asked
about rumours and speculation that had emerged across social media on >COVID-19 that could have caused harm to New Zealanders. My full quote
reads, "I've been watching for some days�and this is not unique to New >Zealand�that, in the midst of what is a global issue, as you would
expect, there are a number of rumours that circulate. I am present on
social media; I see it myself. I cannot go round and individually
dismiss every single rumour I see, as tempted as I might be. So,
instead, I want to send a clear message to the New Zealand public: we
will share with you the most up-to-date information daily. You can
trust us as a source of that information. You can also trust the >Director-General of Health and the Ministry of Health. For that
information, do feel free to visit at any time�to clarify any rumour
you may hear�the covid19.govt.nz website. Otherwise, dismiss anything
else. We will continue to be your single source of truth. We'll
provide information frequently. We will share everything we can.
Everything else you see�a grain of salt."
So your interpretation was wrong - she was including in the "we", the >Director-General and Ministry of Health and the covid19.govt.nz
website, and "Everything else you see�a grain of salt."- - she is not
saying that everyone else is wrong, but that those entities are
sources of truth - others you cannot rely on.
You have interpreted it very narrowly - but then narrow-minded is
something you pride yourself in having, isn't it, Tony. . .
Nope, you lied - deliberate lies are you only defense against the truth.So my recollection was fairly accurate. Thanks for the reference to- it included many public
servants, some university people, as well as politicians, and it was >>>>>talking about a broad range of things, including statistics such as >>>>>number of cases and numbers in hospital. Are you able to give a >>>>>reference to that phrase being used?
one time the phrase was used, Tony.
You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do
not know and I suspect you don't either.
On Tue, 21 May 2024 21:48:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony wrote:Why do you think that is fun?
You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
Conspiracy theories too often are.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do
not know and I suspect you don't either.
But nevertheless, it’s fun to pick through that handful of past instances >where those who were thought to be on the lunatic fringe turned out to be >right, and ignore the much larger number where they did indeed turn out to
be lunatics, isn’t it?
Hindsight is so 6/6, isn’t it?Hindsight is nothing or everything depending on the circumstances. A word so often misunderstood and misused, as in your case.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start >>says
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways? >> Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >>correct,
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearlyYou made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out to be correct. I am sure there are many others.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]correct,
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >> >> >> > believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways? >> >> Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start >> >>says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start >>> >>says
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>> >> >> > believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways? >>> >> Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >>> >>correct,
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional
criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
Does Watergate meet your criteria?
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Despite your refusal to agree I have provided one above.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]correct,
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >> >> >> > believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways? >> >> Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start >> >>says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not >>know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out >>to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a >conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some >unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And >simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered.
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >says...You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >>>> >>correct,
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy >>>> >> >> >theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >>>> >> >> > believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate
ways?
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the
start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly >>>> >are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not >>>>know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>>>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term >>>> conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out >>>>to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And >>> simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional
criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list >>> a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to >>> ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to >>> be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
Does Watergate meet your criteria?
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about
the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once
the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about
who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many
modern conspiracy theories do.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >says...You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >> >says...Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >>>> >>correct,
Really?
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy >>>> >> >> >theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct. >>>> >> >
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate >>>> >> >ways?
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the >>>> >>start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly >>>> >are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>>>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term >>>> conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a >>> conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And >>> simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy >>> - calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional
criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public >>> isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be >>> true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list >>> a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to >>> ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to >>> be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
Does Watergate meet your criteria?
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not aFantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered.
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about
the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once
the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about
who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many >modern conspiracy theories do.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >> >>correct,
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) to >> >> >> > believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate ways?
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not >>know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned out >>to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a >conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about >something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some >unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And >simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public >isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be >true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to >ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out toDespite your refusal to agree I have provided one above.
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
My only objection was that you picked on an absud one as an attempt to disprove
what another poster wrote and then used an absolute.
You have since retracted by admitting that there may be some that havebeen
proven to be correct.
I am not going to research that because it was not what I was concerned about.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point at least).
says...
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >>>> >says...You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >> >>>> >> >says...Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy >> >>>> >> >> >theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) >> >>>> >> >> >to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate >> >>>> >> >ways?
are
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the >> >>>> >>start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly >> >>>> >are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do >> >>>>not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and
therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term >> >>>> conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned >> >>>>out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a >> >>> conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And >> >>> simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy >> >>> - calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional
criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public >> >>> isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be >> >>> true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list >> >>> a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to >> >>> ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to >> >>> be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
Does Watergate meet your criteria?
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about
the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once
the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about
who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many
modern conspiracy theories do.
opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered.
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a
good one.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. AObviously.
conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but
conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >existence.
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seemSolme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a nutshell, at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15-
minute city.
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]That is true and I thank you for your honesty. I doubt that Gordon was offended.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Despite your refusal to agree I have provided one above.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories are >> >> >>correct,
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy >> >> >> >> >theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions) >> >> >> >> >to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate
ways?
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the
start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do not >> >>know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and
therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term >> >> conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned
out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional
criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
My only objection was that you picked on an absud one as an attempt to >>disprove
what another poster wrote and then used an absolute.
Indeed I agree I was being overly harsh in that post and I apologise to >Gordon if there was any offence taken as it was not meant. Were this a
forum I might have later edited my post to be more courteous but usenet
does not allow one to so easily correct such mistakes!
You have since retracted by admitting that there may be some that havebeen
proven to be correct.
I am not going to research that because it was not what I was concerned >>about.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>says...Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point at >least).
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the >>> opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered.
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> >>> says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> >>>> >says...You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>> >>>> >> >says...Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories >>> >>>> >>are
Really?
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical contradictions)
to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct. >>> >>>> >> >
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate >>> >>>> >> >ways?
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the >>> >>>> >>start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they clearly >>> >>>> >are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not
outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do >>> >>>>not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>> >>>>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that turned >>> >>>>out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of a >>> >>> conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some >>> >>> unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a conspiracy >>> >>> - calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional
criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of >>> >>> the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made public >>> >>> isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if notThat is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
outright absurd."
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be >>> >>> true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be
similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
Does Watergate meet your criteria?
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about
the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once
the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about
who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many
modern conspiracy theories do.
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a >>good one.
Obviously.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. A
conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but
conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >>existence.
Solme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a nutshell, >at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seem >>unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >>labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15-
minute city.
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>says...Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point at >>least).
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a >>>good one.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the >>>> opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered. >>>
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >>> says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>> >>>> >> >says...Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories >>>> >>>> >>are
Really?
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote:
On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one
conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical
contradictions)
to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct. >>>> >>>> >> >
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate >>>> >>>> >> >ways?
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the >>>> >>>> >>start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they
clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>> >>>> >outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do >>>> >>>>not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>>> >>>>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The >>>> >>>>term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that
turned
out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of >>>> >>>a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about
something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some >>>> >>> unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. >>>> >>>And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a
conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >>>> >>> criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of >>>> >>> the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made
public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>> >>>> >outright absurd."That is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be >>>> >>> true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can >>>> >>>list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single >>>> >>> proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be >>>> >>> similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely >>>> >>>to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out >>>> >>>to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about.
Does Watergate meet your criteria?
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about
the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once >>>> >the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about >>>> >who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many >>>> >modern conspiracy theories do.
Obviously.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. A >>>conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but >>>conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >>>existence.
Solme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a nutshell, >>at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seem >>>unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >>>labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15- >>>minute city.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You have just deleted a copy of the first post to the thread, Tony -
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:09:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyIdiotic off topic stuff removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>says...Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point at >>>least).
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a >>>>good one.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the >>>>> opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered. >>>>
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>> >>> says...Does Watergate meet your criteria?
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy theories >>>>> >>>> >>are
says...
Really?
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote: >>>>> >>>> >> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one
conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical
contradictions)
to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct. >>>>> >>>> >> >
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in inappropriate
ways?
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - the
start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they
clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>> >>>> >outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I do
not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, and >>>>> >>>>therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The >>>>> >>>>term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that >>>>> >>>>turned
out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack of >>>>> >>>a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about >>>>> >>> something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be some >>>>> >>> unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. >>>>> >>>And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a
conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >>>>> >>> criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit of >>>>> >>> the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made >>>>> >>>public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>> >>>> >outright absurd."That is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can >>>>> >>>list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single >>>>> >>> proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be >>>>> >>> similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not likely >>>>> >>>to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned out >>>>> >>>to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about. >>>>> >>
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about >>>>> >the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once >>>>> >the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about >>>>> >who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many >>>>> >modern conspiracy theories do.
Obviously.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. A >>>>conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but >>>>conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >>>>existence.
Solme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a nutshell,
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seem >>>>unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >>>>labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15- >>>>minute city.
at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
Start your own thread Rich, and stop pissing all over others.
On Tue, 28 May 2024 03:49:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I did not. It was already deleted and not by me.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You have just deleted a copy of the first post to the thread, Tony
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:09:40 -0000 (UTC), TonyIdiotic off topic stuff removed.
<[email protected]> wrote:
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>says...Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point at >>>>least).
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a >>>>>good one.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the >>>>>> opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered. >>>>>
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,Does Watergate meet your criteria?
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy
[email protected]
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote: >>>>>> >>>> >> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote:
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one
conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical
contradictions)
to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in
inappropriate
ways?
theories
are
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - >>>>>> >>>> >>the
start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they >>>>>> >>>> >clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>>> >>>> >outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I >>>>>> >>>>do
not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, >>>>>> >>>>and
therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The >>>>>> >>>>term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that >>>>>> >>>>turned
out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack >>>>>> >>>of
a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about >>>>>> >>> something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be >>>>>> >>>some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist. >>>>>> >>>And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a
conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >>>>>> >>> criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit >>>>>> >>>of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made >>>>>> >>>public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>>> >>>> >outright absurd."That is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to >>>>>> >>>be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can >>>>>> >>>list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single >>>>>> >>> proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be >>>>>> >>> similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not >>>>>> >>>likely
to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned >>>>>> >>>out
to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about. >>>>>> >>
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a
conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about >>>>>> >the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once >>>>>> >the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about >>>>>> >who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many >>>>>> >modern conspiracy theories do.
Obviously.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. A >>>>>conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but >>>>>conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >>>>>existence.
Solme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a >>>>nutshell,
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seem >>>>>unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >>>>>labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15- >>>>>minute city.
at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
Start your own thread Rich, and stop pissing all over others.
-Abuse removed.
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The post you were replying to included that original post to remind
On Tue, 28 May 2024 03:49:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I did not. It was already deleted and not by me.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You have just deleted a copy of the first post to the thread, Tony
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><[email protected]> wrote:Idiotic off topic stuff removed.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>>says...Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point at
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see the
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,Does Watergate meet your criteria?
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy >>>>>>> >>>> >>theories
[email protected]
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote: >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one >>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical
contradictions)
to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in
inappropriate
ways?
are
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - >>>>>>> >>>> >>the
start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they >>>>>>> >>>> >clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>>>> >>>> >outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage I >>>>>>> >>>>do
not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, >>>>>>> >>>>and
therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). The >>>>>>> >>>>term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that >>>>>>> >>>>turned
out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack >>>>>>> >>>of
a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about >>>>>>> >>> something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be >>>>>>> >>>some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to exist.
And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a >>>>>>> >>>conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >>>>>>> >>> criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit >>>>>>> >>>of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made >>>>>>> >>>public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>>>> >>>> >outright absurd."That is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out to >>>>>>> >>>be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I can >>>>>>> >>>list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a single >>>>>>> >>> proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be >>>>>>> >>> similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not >>>>>>> >>>likely
to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned >>>>>>> >>>out
to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about. >>>>>>> >>
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a >>>>>>> >conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about >>>>>>> >the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once >>>>>>> >the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about >>>>>>> >who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many >>>>>>> >modern conspiracy theories do.
opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is shuttered.
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a >>>>>>good one.
least).
Obviously.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. A >>>>>>conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but >>>>>>conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >>>>>>existence.
Solme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a >>>>>nutshell,
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seem >>>>>>unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >>>>>>labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15- >>>>>>minute city.
at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
Start your own thread Rich, and stop pissing all over others.
Do try to concentrate.
-Abuse removed.
On Tue, 28 May 2024 07:04:17 -0000 (UTC), TonyI did no such thing. You ared a liart.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:The post you were replying to included that original post to remind
On Tue, 28 May 2024 03:49:58 -0000 (UTC), TonyNo I did not. It was already deleted and not by me.
<[email protected]> wrote:
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:You have just deleted a copy of the first post to the thread, Tony
On Mon, 27 May 2024 20:09:40 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><[email protected]> wrote:Idiotic off topic stuff removed.
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] >>>>>>>says...Anyone can find an example like that, but it is off the point. (my point >>>>>>at
Rich80105 <[email protected]> wrote:
On 27 May 2024 02:53:09 GMT, Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >Fantasy is what your preach here. In addition, the fact that you see >>>>>>>>the
On 2024-05-27, David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>> In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected]Does Watergate meet your criteria?
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,You made a ridiculously extre,\me case.
[email protected]
says...
David Goodwin <[email protected]> wrote:
In article <[email protected]>,Oh do grow up David, Gordon did not say "all" conspiracy >>>>>>>> >>>> >>theories
[email protected]
says...
On 2024-05-19, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <[email protected]d> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> > On Sun, 19 May 2024 09:09:53 GMT, Willy Nilly wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >
You want disinformation, try:
[a list of multiple conspiracy theories]
Like I said: those who are prone to believing in one >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >conspiracy
theory
are
also prone (regardless of any resulting logical
contradictions)
to
believing in others.
This is because the conspirarcy theories are so often >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>correct.
Really?
So aliens really do abduct people and probe them in
inappropriate
ways?
are
correct,
I can't be bothered with the rest of what you follow3ed with - >>>>>>>> >>>> >>the
start
says
it all.
He said conspiracy theories are "so often correct" which they >>>>>>>> >>>> >clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>>>>> >>>> >outright absurd.
Fact is many "conspriacies" tuen out to be true. What percentage >>>>>>>> >>>>I
do
not
know
and I suspect you don't either.
In the 1930s Chamberlain said Hitler intended no harm to the UK, >>>>>>>> >>>>and
therefore
those that thouight otherwise were wrong (conspiracy theory!). >>>>>>>> >>>>The
term
conspiracy theory had not been coined then but that is one that >>>>>>>> >>>>turned
out
to
be correct. I am sure there are many others.
Few people would consider that a conspiracy theory due to the lack >>>>>>>> >>>of
a
conspiracy. Chamberlain was simply (catastrophically) wrong about >>>>>>>> >>> something.
For something to be a conspiracy theory there actually has to be >>>>>>>> >>>some
unproven conspiracy of some kind other that people believe to >>>>>>>> >>>exist.
And
simply keeping something secret isn't necessarily proof of a >>>>>>>> >>>conspiracy
- calling something a conspiracy implies some level of intentional >>>>>>>> >>> criminality, corruption or other harmful behaviour for the benefit >>>>>>>> >>>of
the conspirators. So something previously kept secret being made >>>>>>>> >>>public
isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory proven correct.
You should provide evidence that " which they clearly
are not. Conspiracy theories are far more often incorrect if not >>>>>>>> >>>> >outright absurd."That is just as broad a statement as Gordon's.
I'm sure there are some conspiracy theories that have turned out >>>>>>>> >>>to
be
true, but they are almost certainly few and far between given I >>>>>>>> >>>can
list
a bunch of unproven ones without effort but can't think of a >>>>>>>> >>>single
proven one. Most actual conspiracy theories out there appear to be >>>>>>>> >>> similar in nature to the ones I listed. Clearly absurd and not >>>>>>>> >>>likely
to
ever be proven true.
I'd be glad to hear of any actual conspiracy theories that turned >>>>>>>> >>>out
to
be true though - I'm sure it would be fascinating to read about. >>>>>>>> >>
I see that as a Conspiracy, and a Criminal Conspiracy, but not a >>>>>>>> >conspiracy theory. There were not people going around talking about >>>>>>>> >the President plotting to break into a building and steal papers. Once
the incident had occurred there may have been a lot of theories about >>>>>>>> >who had done it, but they did not generally stray into fantasy as many
modern conspiracy theories do.
opinions of others as fantasy merely proves that your mind is >>>>>>>>shuttered.
I don't really see how that relates to the point Rich made which *was* a >>>>>>>good one.
least).
Obviously.
A conspiracy and a conspiracy theory are two different things. A >>>>>>>conspiracy theory may later turn into a proven conspiracy, but >>>>>>>conspiracies can exist without there being anyone theorising about their >>>>>>>existence.
Solme are fantasies and some are not - that is the whole point in a >>>>>>nutshell,
And calling many modern conspiracy theories fantasy doesn't seem >>>>>>>unreasonable to me. One could certainly come up with far less charitable >>>>>>>labels for the conspiracy theories surrounding, for example, the 15- >>>>>>>minute city.
at least as far as my involvement in this thread goes.
Start your own thread Rich, and stop pissing all over others.
Do try to concentrate.
you of the subject of the thread - you deleted it.
-Abuse removed.
As per Hanlon’s Razor, a lot of what goes on online is not about malice, but about just plain stupidity.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 166:31:15 |
| Calls: | 12,096 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 15,001 |
| Messages: | 6,517,808 |