Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Arl arse]

Did I hurt your feelings?I just thought you should learn what those big words mean so you don't get so confused all the time.

Yeah you hurt my feelings, you big mean dictionary corner wannabe.

 

[Cardie]

 

rhetorical

adjective

 

1. 1.

   relating to or concerned with the art of rhetoric.

   "repetition is a common rhetorical device"

    

   •  

      

      

      

      
2. 2.

   (of a question) asked in order to produce an effect or to make a statement rather than to elicit information.

 

Oh and lighten up, I'm just fucking with you.

 

[Arl arse]

Oh and lighten up, I'm just fucking with you.

 

I'll have a consonant please Carol.

[Rico1304]

Calling all the loonballs, cranks and homeopaths, Godless Spellchecker's next podcast is dealing with 9/11 conspiracy theories. He's asking for questions now via Twitter that can be put to Michael Shermer.

 

Obviously if your question doesn't get asked it's because the FBI has you pegged and you'll soon be disappeared and all trace of you removed from existence. Expect your vaccines, they'll be kept in a jar next to Diana's head and a

Lizards foreskin.

[Red Phoenix]

Calling all the loonballs, cranks and homeopaths, Godless Spellchecker's next podcast is dealing with 9/11 conspiracy theories. He's asking for questions now via Twitter that can be put to Michael Shermer.

 

Obviously if your question doesn't get asked it's because the FBI has you pegged and you'll soon be disappeared and all trace of you removed from existence. Expect your vaccines, they'll be kept in a jar next to Diana's head and a

Lizards foreskin.

 

 

You need look no further than our governments and corporations for the root of the problem. If they didn't lie and conspire so much there'd be nowhere near as many theories, or people believing them. Or actual conspiracies, of course.

 

You just keep ridiculing though, I'm sure that'll work out well, especially if something big is revealed in our lifetime. And no I don't mean anything specific, just saying.

[Arl arse]

Ask him to follow the money.

 

[Arl arse]

Or these:

 

[Arl arse]

[Rico1304]

Ask him to follow the money.

You ask him, I'm not putting my name to anything in case the Jewish lizards from Texas are listening, I suspect you're on Twitter, he's @Godlessspellchecker

[Arl arse]

You ask him, I'm not putting my name to anything in case the Jewish lizards from Texas are listening, I suspect you're on Twitter, he's @Godlessspellchecker

Erm.....everyone knows the Jewish lizards are from D.C, The Vatican and the City of London.

 

Disinfo agent Shill. :)

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

From the comment section of the vid Arl arse linked. Some good points really (I'm not saying it proves anything, nor do I want to get into an argument about 9/11) :

 

 

Actually that would've been better without the "pretend" at the end there, it would've worked fine without adding that. Still think it's amazing though how messed up the official story aspect seems to be the more you look into it.

I couldn't get past that abomination of a first paragraph. What a load of unfettered bollocks that is. Holy fuck, mate; you don't have buy into some shit.

[Spy Bee]

I couldn't get past that abomination of a first paragraph. What a load of unfettered bollocks that is. Holy fuck, mate; you don't have buy into some shit.

Playing the man not the ball there NV.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Playing the man not the ball there NV.

Playing both. Happily. First off I passed comment on the content, which defies fact and logic, and then I said that he buys into some shit, which he has a provable history of doing.

[Spy Bee]

Playing both. Happily. First off I passed comment on the content, which defies fact and logic, and then I said that he buys into some shit, which he has a provable history of doing.

What about the first paragraph do you consider to be an abomination?

 

It's a bit liberal with what it states as facts, but it does raise some interesting points.

[Red Phoenix]

Playing the man not the ball there NV.

 

Quelle surprise.

 

 

Playing both. Happily. First off I passed comment on the content, which defies fact and logic, and then I said that he buys into some shit, which he has a provable history of doing.

 

Play both then. Go back to the comment and refute what needs refuting. Show me what defies fact and logic. Point out the "unfettered bollocks", instead of just attacking me.

 

Funny that you're talking about a proven history of me talking shite, and dragging out a post I made 5 days ago within 1 hour of me posting a thread about a book I'm planning on writing. Do you work for the government by any chance?

 

Go back to the quote and refute what needs refuting.

[Red Phoenix]

Here's the "abomination" of a first paragraph, that Numero "couldn't get past", and which is "unfettered bollocks" :

 

 

 

ONE is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, operating independently of any government & competent intelligence service, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.

[aws]

Here's the "abomination" of a first paragraph, that Numero "couldn't get past", and which is "unfettered bollocks" :

That paragraph is difficult to believe alright. But perhaps not as difficult as believing all those agencies conspired together to cover up mass murder and nobody's blabbed yet.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What about the first paragraph do you consider to be an abomination?

 

It's a bit liberal with what it states as facts, but it does raise some interesting points.

What interesting points? All I see are half truths, poor logic, and twisted inferences. Those things are that make it unfettered ball bags. For me, at least. I see nothing interesting in it. I'm certainly not going to be arsed breaking it down bit by bit. It's guff, spending time on it is beyond me at this period in my life mate.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Quelle surprise.

 

 

 

Play both then. Go back to the comment and refute what needs refuting. Show me what defies fact and logic. Point out the "unfettered bollocks", instead of just attacking me.

 

Funny that you're talking about a proven history of me talking shite, and dragging out a post I made 5 days ago within 1 hour of me posting a thread about a book I'm planning on writing. Do you work for the government by any chance?

 

Go back to the quote and refute what needs refuting.

Fuck off. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? And yes, I work for the Ministry of the Utterly Ridiculous. We've been keeping an eye on you.

 

As for 'attacking you', you need a slap with a wet fish. I said 'you don't half buy into some shit'. Hardly an attack, is it.

[Spy Bee]

What interesting points? All I see are half truths, poor logic, and twisted inferences. Those things are what makes it unfettered ball bags. For me, at least. I see nothing interesting in it. I'm certainly not going to be arsed breaking it down bit by bit. It's guff, spending time on it is beyond me at this period in my life mate.

Well the whole things doesn't add up does it? Just to play the man I thought was a bit arrogant to be honest. Why don't you point out what are half truths, poor logic and twisted inferences, or just stay out of it?

 

 

Fuck off. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? 

That's out of order again. And let's be honest, it's arrogant again. Your ego doesn't like being told what to do by someone you consider to be a loony toon does it?

 

In fact, he was just stating what you should do if you want to debate without coming across as argumentative, arrogant or lazy. If you just really don't agree and can't be arsed to explain why, well, my mum always told me that if I had nothing good to say then not to say anything at all.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Well the whole things doesn't add up does it? Just to play the man I thought was a bit arrogant to be honest. Why don't you point out what are half truths, poor logic and twisted inferences, or just stay out of it?

Because I didn't want to? I can, unless I'm mistaken, say what I like and comment how I like about what I like? If you've an issue with that, that's fine, it's your right to say and comment how you like, but don't expect me to change how I post because you didn't like it. That's arrogance.

 

 

That's out of order again. And let's be honest, it's arrogant again. Your ego doesn't like being told what to do by someone you consider to be a loony toon does it?

I don't like being spoken to like a child by anybody, regardless of who it is. If Sugar Ape or Monty or Gary Gliter, or Sec. had spoken to me like that, they'd have got the same response. Still, I can't understand how you see what I've said as arrogant, but 'do this, do that, post this, post that' isn't?

 

In fact, he was just stating what you should do if you want to debate without coming across as argumentatie, arrogant or lazy. If you just really don't agree and can't be arsed to explain why, well, my mum always told me that if I had nothing good to say then not to say anything at all.

Your Mum was, I'm sure, a fine woman. However, I'm guessing she didn't use TLW? My comment was about some youtube reply, which in my opinion was fucking crank. I'd spend no more time arguing against it than I would arguing against flat earthers, biblical literalists, or moon landing deniers. I would deride their comments, though; that's my right. It wasn't supposed to be conducive to good debate - I don't see them of worthy of debate - it was supposed to be ridicule.

[Red Phoenix]

Fuck off. Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? And yes, I work for the Ministry of the Utterly Ridiculous. We've been keeping an eye on you.

 

As for 'attacking you', you need a slap with a wet fish. I said 'you don't half buy into some shit'. Hardly an attack, is it.

 

I just get bored of you doing this, so maybe I tried winding you up instead. I knew you'd do anything but refute parts of the quote you dragged up as well.

 

So I need a slap with a wet fish, and you still refuse to go into detail about your claims regarding the quote you dragged up. Awesome.

 

edit : oh and maybe stop getting into a kerfuffle about how I spoke to you and getting all offended, it's the internet. Why not talk about the quote and why it's unfettered bollocks?

[Red Phoenix]

I'm certainly not going to be arsed breaking it down bit by bit. It's guff, spending time on it is beyond me at this period in my life mate.

 

Or pointing out even one instance that's supposed to be unfettered bollocks. If you're beyond spending your time on it, why bring up the quote from 5 days ago? Can you at least try to put yourself in my position here for a second or two and see how I could be confused and maybe slightly wound up at this?

[Rico1304]

Here's one for you;

 

A crank starts posting on an Internet forum, he gets the attention of several other cranks and then over time mentions a book he wants to write. The book sounds like any other collection of bollocks available already. The killer bit is that the crank wants his new found mates to PAY FOR THE BOOK BEFORE ITS WRITTEN! This then falls by the wayside as the crank goes more mental.

 

Then several months later the crank resurfaces and tries the same scam again!

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Or pointing out even one instance that's supposed to be unfettered bollocks.

Come on, you're the researcher, surely you can find some issue with it?

 

If you're beyond spending your time on it, why bring up the quote from 5 days ago?

1) Because it was brought to my attention. 2) Because I wanted to ridicule the person who wrote it and say that you don't half believe some shit.

 

Can you at least try to put yourself in my position here for a second or two and see how I could be confused and maybe slightly wound up at this?

Mate, you need to develop a thick skin and you need to do it quickly. If you're writing a book, you're going to have to expect people to pull your stuff apart. They will, by the way, forensically and ruthlessly. They'll make you look, if you're lucky, like a total fraud. Either that or you'll just be totally and completely ignored.