<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
.
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 06:29:37 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
....my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "tw" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 06:55:12 AM |
|
|
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
Fair enough. I should have said "crimes that make it to court..." or
"criminal cases".
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured.
Whoooa now.. ;.)
This does not mean the conspiracy did not occur.
Agreed, but if the ONLY proof is the lack of proof (see for exaple Tony's
rantings about TWA800), as is so often the case with conspiro-whackos then I
will be ignoring the cries of "conspiracy".
Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq
Hmm... I'm not sure I regard THAT as conspiracy, mainly because such a
*****-poor job was done of covering up the motivation. Quite obviously it was
a the following things in no particular order:
A display of ***** swingin' miltary might to appease a public who had already
been spoon-fed "connections" between Saddam and Al Qaeda and distract them
from Dubya's failure to have Osama in a cage somewhere in Manhattan.
A display of ***** swingin' miltary might to warn a few other countries what
might be coming their way if they don't toe the line.
A bit of unfinished business against someone who has been demonised out of
all proportion to their actual threat to the US.
A sincere desire to see democracy in Iraq which unfortunately had no
long-term thought behind it.
A desire to see stability in the world oil market.
The hoo-ha about banned weapons was to try and attach some sort of UN
legitimacy to it.
Note I don't necessarily see these as "evil" reasons for going to war
(though no doubt I would feel different if I were an Iraqi who's house had
been destroyed, livelihood ruined and family killed by the fighting),
historically they all have precedents. Politics is a cynical business,
nation building doubly so.
< - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory.
There's PLENTY of evidence to support all the above, I think.
The 'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dragonlady" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 07:10:26 PM |
|
|
"tw" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:ceqilr$1ma$1@newstree.wise.edt.ericsson.se...
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
Fair enough. I should have said "crimes that make it to court..." or
"criminal cases".
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured.
Whoooa now.. ;.)
This does not mean the conspiracy did not occur.
Agreed, but if the ONLY proof is the lack of proof (see for exaple Tony's
rantings about TWA800), as is so often the case with conspiro-whackos then
I
will be ignoring the cries of "conspiracy".
Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq
Hmm... I'm not sure I regard THAT as conspiracy, mainly because such a
*****-poor job was done of covering up the motivation. Quite obviously it
was
a the following things in no particular order:
A *****-poor job of covering up doesn't make it less of a conspiracy. A
conspiracy is simply a plot by two or more people to do something (usually
illegal) while covering up the true motives with more legitimate motives.
The fact that Bush is too dumb to cover up after himself does not mean there
was no conspiracy.
A display of ***** swingin' miltary might to appease a public who had
already
been spoon-fed "connections" between Saddam and Al Qaeda and distract them
from Dubya's failure to have Osama in a cage somewhere in Manhattan.
And swallowed it, too. Paranoia about Arab countries is rampant in the
country, and the terrorists have noone but themselves to thank for that.
Fanaticism becomes a two way street if you let it.
A display of ***** swingin' miltary might to warn a few other countries
what
might be coming their way if they don't toe the line.
Why don't you just call it what it is? Bullying.
A bit of unfinished business against someone who has been demonised out of
all proportion to their actual threat to the US.
There was no unfinished business. It was just more of the same. If you
can't win with your mouth, win with your sword.
A sincere desire to see democracy in Iraq which unfortunately had no
long-term thought behind it.
Long-term? It didn't even have much in the way of *short* term thought
behind it as far as I can tell!
A desire to see stability in the world oil market.
More like a desire to take over part of the world oil market to make Bush
more money. In other words, greed. They certainly haven't stabalized oil
prices, if you judge by gas prices, which have not been any more volatile
than they were *before* the war. If anything, it's worse than it was
before!
The hoo-ha about banned weapons was to try and attach some sort of UN
legitimacy to it.
That's what makes it a conspiracy.
Note I don't necessarily see these as "evil" reasons for going to war
(though no doubt I would feel different if I were an Iraqi who's house had
been destroyed, livelihood ruined and family killed by the fighting),
historically they all have precedents. Politics is a cynical business,
nation building doubly so.
We've already *got* a nation. This isn't nation building. It's greed, pure
and simple.
< - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory.
There's PLENTY of evidence to support all the above, I think.
Where? The only thing that can be construed as evidence is the reports,
which prove very little except what idiots some people can be.
The 'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are
the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 09:20:12 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 13:55:12 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
Fair enough. I should have said "crimes that make it to court..." or
"criminal cases".
Well, yes, but that would've supported grubby's statement to some
extent - or at least it would've made your response irrelevant
somewhat. :-| I don't really agree with his wording, myself.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured.
Whoooa now.. ;.)
*neigh!* ;-)
This does not mean the conspiracy did not occur.
Agreed, but if the ONLY proof is the lack of proof (see for exaple Tony's
rantings about TWA800), as is so often the case with conspiro-whackos then I
will be ignoring the cries of "conspiracy".
Yes. The difference with Tony's misguided (as usual) argument there
was that the evidence practically refuted the possibility of a SAM
attack - it wasn't merely lacking sufficient evidence.
Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq
Hmm... I'm not sure I regard THAT as conspiracy, mainly because such a
*****-poor job was done of covering up the motivation.
All I can say to that is that conspiracies aren't always covered up
effectively. Sometimes they're not even covered up at all. This
particular conspiracy was quite blatently obvious.
Quite obviously it was
a the following things in no particular order:
A display of ***** swingin' miltary might to appease a public who had already
been spoon-fed "connections" between Saddam and Al Qaeda and distract them
from Dubya's failure to have Osama in a cage somewhere in Manhattan.
A display of ***** swingin' miltary might to warn a few other countries what
might be coming their way if they don't toe the line.
A bit of unfinished business against someone who has been demonised out of
all proportion to their actual threat to the US.
A sincere desire to see democracy in Iraq which unfortunately had no
long-term thought behind it.
A desire to see stability in the world oil market.
The hoo-ha about banned weapons was to try and attach some sort of UN
legitimacy to it.
This is the foundation of conspiracy theory. The cited reason was the
threat of a WMD attack against the mainland United States and Saddam's
so-called willingness to do it. The rest are the 'covert' motives
which comprise the conspiracy, I would think.
Note I don't necessarily see these as "evil" reasons for going to war
(though no doubt I would feel different if I were an Iraqi who's house had
been destroyed, livelihood ruined and family killed by the fighting),
historically they all have precedents. Politics is a cynical business,
nation building doubly so.
< - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory.
There's PLENTY of evidence to support all the above, I think.
Evidence, or conjecture? A memorandum from Bush stating that he wants
to attack Iraq to stabilise the world oil market would be evidence.
Us simply *knowing* what his motives were, is conjecture - or
conspiracy theory.
Make that my 4c worth. ;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dragonlady" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 06:56:54 PM |
|
|
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cuan" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
05 Aug 2004 03:39:44 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:56:54 -0700, "Dragonlady"
<dragonlady@cableone.net> wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
As I stated in the latter post to tw, I didn't agree with his wording,
but I could still see the point he was trying to make.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
Well, grub *is* a troll and possibly a crackpot too. Sorta like that
Danny Min character. I continued the cross-post out of courtesy to
anyone outside my local newsgroup who may be following the thread. If
you didn't cross-post your reply and you're not subscribed to APN, I
wouldn't even know it existed.
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dragonlady" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
05 Aug 2004 05:57:37 PM |
|
|
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:9pr3h05ja11ku8bfg7f5ilha0gd1emvbd3@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 16:56:54 -0700, "Dragonlady"
<dragonlady@cableone.net> wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
As I stated in the latter post to tw, I didn't agree with his wording,
but I could still see the point he was trying to make.
Points tend to come through a lot more clearly when you either know the
person, or they don't exaggerate trying to make it.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
Well, grub *is* a troll and possibly a crackpot too.
I suspected as much.
Sorta like that
Danny Min character.
Which one is he?
I continued the cross-post out of courtesy to
anyone outside my local newsgroup who may be following the thread. If
you didn't cross-post your reply and you're not subscribed to APN, I
wouldn't even know it existed.
Once something has been cross posted, it's kind of pointless to take the
other groups out, you never know where the person you're talking with is
posting from, and if there's a resulting flame war, it takes on a life of
it's own anyway. I'm posting from AAR and as you say, wouldn't have know
you replied if it hadn't been for the cross posting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "conservozilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 05:29:13 PM |
|
|
only if two or more people are involvedalso it takes planning
Dragonlady wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dragonlady" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 07:35:34 PM |
|
|
Yes, but that's not what the original poster said, is it?
He said *every* crime is a conspiracy theory (see the subject line). That's
*still* a crock.
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:41116357.8050704@msn.com...
only if two or more people are involvedalso it takes planning
Dragonlady wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "conservozilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
04 Aug 2004 05:50:43 PM |
|
|
blacks law dictionary defines conspircy
Dragonlady wrote:
Yes, but that's not what the original poster said, is it?
He said *every* crime is a conspiracy theory (see the subject line). That's
*still* a crock.
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:41116357.8050704@msn.com...
only if two or more people are involvedalso it takes planning
Dragonlady wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dragonlady" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
05 Aug 2004 05:04:56 PM |
|
|
Why don't you try addressing what's said instead of trying to draw me off on
a tangent?
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:7LdQc.24076$Zm3.17708@fe2.texas.rr.com...
blacks law dictionary defines conspircy
Dragonlady wrote:
Yes, but that's not what the original poster said, is it?
He said *every* crime is a conspiracy theory (see the subject line).
That's
*still* a crock.
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:41116357.8050704@msn.com...
only if two or more people are involvedalso it takes planning
Dragonlady wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "conservozilla" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
05 Aug 2004 09:44:46 AM |
|
|
i cold see the traffic courts docket conspiracy to make illegal left turn
conservozilla wrote:
blacks law dictionary defines conspircy
Dragonlady wrote:
Yes, but that's not what the original poster said, is it?
He said *every* crime is a conspiracy theory (see the subject line).
That's
*still* a crock.
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:41116357.8050704@msn.com...
only if two or more people are involvedalso it takes planning
Dragonlady wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried, or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dragonlady" |
|
| Title: Re: Every crime is a conspiracy theory |
05 Aug 2004 05:36:24 PM |
|
|
*ROTFL*
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:yJrQc.427$va2.288@fe1.texas.rr.com...
i cold see the traffic courts docket conspiracy to make illegal left turn
conservozilla wrote:
blacks law dictionary defines conspircy
Dragonlady wrote:
Yes, but that's not what the original poster said, is it?
He said *every* crime is a conspiracy theory (see the subject line).
That's
*still* a crock.
"conservozilla" <pontiff_maximus@msn.com> wrote in message
news:41116357.8050704@msn.com...
only if two or more people are involvedalso it takes planning
Dragonlady wrote:
That's all well and good, but saying that *every* crime is a
conspiracy
theory is a crock. Adding "Until somebody is convicted in a
courtroom"
doesn't make it any less of a crock. Multiple suspects is not the
same
thing as a conspiracy theory.
And why is this being cross-posted to all these unrelated groups if
the
poster isn't a crackpot? Or a troll?
"Cuan" <an@nymous.co.za> wrote in message
news:slg1h0hlono8foquddc12qlh8n3evf6squ@4ax.com...
On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 11:46:17 +0200, "tw" <no@no.com> wrote:
<grub@internet.charitydays.uk.co> wrote in message
news:orq0h0lc5qirnon1dcueu54ncondhue9ms@4ax.com...
Every crime is a conspiracy theory
_______________________________________________
Until somebody is convicted in a courtroom.
Not really. Certainly NOT in the case of internet usenet
conspiracy-crackpots where lack of evidence is all the evidence
they
need..
(this goes for WMD in Iraq claims too).
I'm going to believe the 'crackpot' adjective was directed towards
Jean as a form of selective interpretation. ;-)
Crimes tend to have a victim and at
least a degree of reliable evidence pointing to the accused.
Not necessarily. Murders happen daily, yet only a few leave
sufficient evidence to make any arrests or accusations or to even
prompt conjecture as to who the responsible party is. To say that a
crime is only a crime when there is suffient evidence to make an
arrest is a wee bit inaccurate.
In the case of conspiracy theory, there is a victim - there always
is.
However, the sheer power of the conspirators can be such that any
trace of evidence can be effectively erased or obscured. This does
not mean the conspiracy did not occur. Take 'Iraqi Freedom', for
example. There was a definite conspiracy to invade Iraq - we've
been
arguing it for months, yet, where is the concrete evidence? In this
case, it is the *lack* of evidence which supports the theory. The
'crackpots' who discount the possibility of such a conspiracy are
the
ones who are busy arguing that the WMD have been moved, or buried,
or
sold as scrap metal *after* the war (eg: Jean), as opposed to just
accepting that there wasn't any to begin with. Why? Because it
would
support the fact that a conspiracy did, in fact, occur.
...my 2c worth. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
