"How Stupid Are You?"

[maure 1]

yes, actually, YOU should know, you're the master of the Whiting/Hamilton being big cahonies and Whiting favouring the black dude MASTER CT. so up your alley this thread

You don't even get this one right.

Since it is YOU who claims I am (master or not) a conspiracy theorist, it is for YOU to explain where you get your know-how's... and they better be backed by absolute proof.

For the conspiracy theory to be proved right or wrong, the 'events' need to be backed up by an authority that everyone trusts (well, the huge majority, at least!).

A majority makes no theory of anything, conspiracy or else. It only makes a majority... and if it is "huge", then it is "huge" too.

[BradSpeedMan 6]

You don't even get this one right.

Since it is YOU who claims I am (master or not) a conspiracy theorist, it is for YOU to explain where you get your know-how's... and they better be backed by absolute proof.

regarding Lewis treatment , and don't take my comments so seriously, there was a funny guy with a tongue sticking out at the end of the last post, here he is again

[Kopite Girl 0]

Did you know that in predictive text, Tifosi translates as Theori. WOW. ME FTW.

[maure 1]

regarding Lewis treatment , and don't take my comments so seriously, there was a funny guy with a tongue sticking out at the end of the last post, here he is again

Oh, no worries there. I don't take pretty much anything seriously.

Matter of fact, when I see a screw, it tickles me to drive it. Thus my reply to your previous post. Get me, man, and be done with it.

Btw, I neither use nor acknowledge smilies. Smoke signals, on the other hand...

[Quiet One 15]

Wow, my ramblings must have been even more off the mark than usual, because nobody seemed to get it right. Not even close.

No cookies for any of you guys (except Cav *blows a kiss*)

Unless, of course, you did get it right, but you are just trying to confuse me because I am too close to the truth for comfort...

[maure 1]

And speaking of conspiracies... or simply for the sake of a smile:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/flux_tower_data_studies/

[Quiet One 15]

Ok, I will try once again, because my posts did seem more confusing than clarifying. Please read carefully

- When I talk about conspiracy theories, I am not talking about who killed JFK (not yet, this was supposed to be a series, but this is beyond my capabilities). I am merely talking about the basic reasoning. CT seems to have a somewhat stronger sense in English than in Spanish, judging from your reactions.

- For better understanding, I will chose an example and terminology I used other times: what U.Ecco calls "cogitus interruptus" (geddit?). He illustrates this reasoning with a guy showing you a box of matches and telling you "see?". You will probably not get it, so he might add: "there are seven matches, now you get it?" with a knowing smile. Sooner or later, you will build an argument fill in the blanks, but the fact is that the other guy just showed you a box of matches with seven matches in it.

- Call it cogitus interruptus, call it a CT reasoning, it's the same. It is not an actual argument. The fact that most of us use them in every day discourses does not make it any more valid. I showed you an extreme case (my friend's) of how bad it can end. If the friggin' Santander story ends up being right, it will not belie the fact that merely pointing out that Santander is Spanish and so is Nando was a weak supporting argument in its favour to begin with. Like I said, I can easily imagine another cogitus interruptus against it with much many ties to Ferrari and it's management.

- Yes, we use it many times to illustrate our feelings, hunches, and such. Yes, we are entitled to have our opinions, and opinions usually are not based on fully documented, thoroughly researched subjects. But if you ask yourself if your argument isn't just a case of cogitus interruptus would help you make a better, stronger case.

- Back to Santander for all those Santander lovers out there George had made an excellent point of highlighting what I meant. If you read his first post, "greasing the wheels" sound like "Santander, a spanish company paid Ferrari to lay off Kimi and hire alonso, a spanish driver". After many clarifications from myself and him, the phrase "greasing the wheels" means that Santander was a factor in Kimi's dismissal. As I have full confidence in our TP and his objectivity and fairness, I believe him. so where was the flaw? The flaw was in our behavior when we filled in the blanks on his comment. The problem is that, once explained enoug, the Santander money argument becomes really trivial. So, a sponsor was a factor. That is not new and that is hardly different than what happens with every driver whenever they close a deal. Saying that Santander was a factor sounds as damning as saying that Nando's knowledge of the Italian language was a factor. Saying that "Santander greased the wheels" sounds a lot stronger.

- Finally, to some sense, even this thread is a case of cogitus interruptus. The mere mention of conspiracy theories had everybody filling in the blanks. Sadly, not the way I intended them to. I wish somebody with a better comprehension of English nuances and better skills at keeping things short and simple would grasp what I meant

[pabloh20 1]

Ok, I will try once again, because my posts did seem more confusing than clarifying. Please read carefully

- When I talk about conspiracy theories, I am not talking about who killed JFK (not yet, this was supposed to be a series, but this is beyond my capabilities). I am merely talking about the basic reasoning. CT seems to have a somewhat stronger sense in English than in Spanish, judging from your reactions.

- For better understanding, I will chose an example and terminology I used other times: what U.Ecco calls "cogitus interruptus" (geddit?). He illustrates this reasoning with a guy showing you a box of matches and telling you "see?". You will probably not get it, so he might add: "there are seven matches, now you get it?" with a knowing smile. Sooner or later, you will build an argument fill in the blanks, but the fact is that the other guy just showed you a box of matches with seven matches in it.

- Call it cogitus interruptus, call it a CT reasoning, it's the same. It is not an actual argument. The fact that most of us use them in every day discourses does not make it any more valid. I showed you an extreme case (my friend's) of how bad it can end. If the friggin' Santander story ends up being right, it will not belie the fact that merely pointing out that Santander is Spanish and so is Nando was a weak supporting argument in its favour to begin with. Like I said, I can easily imagine another cogitus interruptus against it with much many ties to Ferrari and it's management.

- Yes, we use it many times to illustrate our feelings, hunches, and such. Yes, we are entitled to have our opinions, and opinions usually are not based on fully documented, thoroughly researched subjects. But if you ask yourself if your argument isn't just a case of cogitus interruptus would help you make a better, stronger case.

- Back to Santander for all those Santander lovers out there George had made an excellent point of highlighting what I meant. If you read his first post, "greasing the wheels" sound like "Santander, a spanish company paid Ferrari to lay off Kimi and hire alonso, a spanish driver". After many clarifications from myself and him, the phrase "greasing the wheels" means that Santander was a factor in Kimi's dismissal. As I have full confidence in our TP and his objectivity and fairness, I believe him. so where was the flaw? The flaw was in our behavior when we filled in the blanks on his comment. The problem is that, once explained enoug, the Santander money argument becomes really trivial. So, a sponsor was a factor. That is not new and that is hardly different than what happens with every driver whenever they close a deal. Saying that Santander was a factor sounds as damning as saying that Nando's knowledge of the Italian language was a factor. Saying that "Santander greased the wheels" sounds a lot stronger.

- Finally, to some sense, even this thread is a case of cogitus interruptus. The mere mention of conspiracy theories had everybody filling in the blanks. Sadly, not the way I intended them to. I wish somebody with a better comprehension of English nuances and better skills at keeping things short and simple would grasp what I meant

Oh puhlease, everyone knows who shot JR!!!

If it's any consolation, I knew what you meant and I could explain it simply for you, but you haven't greased my wheels enough yet

[BradSpeedMan 6]

Ok, I will try once again, because my posts did seem more confusing than clarifying. Please read carefully

- When I talk about conspiracy theories, I am not talking about who killed JFK (not yet, this was supposed to be a series, but this is beyond my capabilities). I am merely talking about the basic reasoning. CT seems to have a somewhat stronger sense in English than in Spanish, judging from your reactions.

- For better understanding, I will chose an example and terminology I used other times: what U.Ecco calls "cogitus interruptus" (geddit?). He illustrates this reasoning with a guy showing you a box of matches and telling you "see?". You will probably not get it, so he might add: "there are seven matches, now you get it?" with a knowing smile. Sooner or later, you will build an argument fill in the blanks, but the fact is that the other guy just showed you a box of matches with seven matches in it.

- Call it cogitus interruptus, call it a CT reasoning, it's the same. It is not an actual argument. The fact that most of us use them in every day discourses does not make it any more valid. I showed you an extreme case (my friend's) of how bad it can end. If the friggin' Santander story ends up being right, it will not belie the fact that merely pointing out that Santander is Spanish and so is Nando was a weak supporting argument in its favour to begin with. Like I said, I can easily imagine another cogitus interruptus against it with much many ties to Ferrari and it's management.

- Yes, we use it many times to illustrate our feelings, hunches, and such. Yes, we are entitled to have our opinions, and opinions usually are not based on fully documented, thoroughly researched subjects. But if you ask yourself if your argument isn't just a case of cogitus interruptus would help you make a better, stronger case.

- Back to Santander for all those Santander lovers out there George had made an excellent point of highlighting what I meant. If you read his first post, "greasing the wheels" sound like "Santander, a spanish company paid Ferrari to lay off Kimi and hire alonso, a spanish driver". After many clarifications from myself and him, the phrase "greasing the wheels" means that Santander was a factor in Kimi's dismissal. As I have full confidence in our TP and his objectivity and fairness, I believe him. so where was the flaw? The flaw was in our behavior when we filled in the blanks on his comment. The problem is that, once explained enoug, the Santander money argument becomes really trivial. So, a sponsor was a factor. That is not new and that is hardly different than what happens with every driver whenever they close a deal. Saying that Santander was a factor sounds as damning as saying that Nando's knowledge of the Italian language was a factor. Saying that "Santander greased the wheels" sounds a lot stronger.

- Finally, to some sense, even this thread is a case of cogitus interruptus. The mere mention of conspiracy theories had everybody filling in the blanks. Sadly, not the way I intended them to. I wish somebody with a better comprehension of English nuances and better skills at keeping things short and simple would grasp what I meant

this cogitus interruptus seem to have a dramatic effect on you, if I did'nt know better, I would've thought that youcreated the thread to share your newfound semantic literature

[Argento Reloaded 1]

Change your habits... and find a girlfriend!!!

[Rainmaster 7]

Ok, I will try once again, because my posts did seem more confusing than clarifying. Please read carefully

- When I talk about conspiracy theories, I am not talking about who killed JFK (not yet, this was supposed to be a series, but this is beyond my capabilities). I am merely talking about the basic reasoning. CT seems to have a somewhat stronger sense in English than in Spanish, judging from your reactions.

- For better understanding, I will chose an example and terminology I used other times: what U.Ecco calls "cogitus interruptus" (geddit?). He illustrates this reasoning with a guy showing you a box of matches and telling you "see?". You will probably not get it, so he might add: "there are seven matches, now you get it?" with a knowing smile. Sooner or later, you will build an argument fill in the blanks, but the fact is that the other guy just showed you a box of matches with seven matches in it.

- Call it cogitus interruptus, call it a CT reasoning, it's the same. It is not an actual argument. The fact that most of us use them in every day discourses does not make it any more valid. I showed you an extreme case (my friend's) of how bad it can end. If the friggin' Santander story ends up being right, it will not belie the fact that merely pointing out that Santander is Spanish and so is Nando was a weak supporting argument in its favour to begin with. Like I said, I can easily imagine another cogitus interruptus against it with much many ties to Ferrari and it's management.

- Yes, we use it many times to illustrate our feelings, hunches, and such. Yes, we are entitled to have our opinions, and opinions usually are not based on fully documented, thoroughly researched subjects. But if you ask yourself if your argument isn't just a case of cogitus interruptus would help you make a better, stronger case.

- Back to Santander for all those Santander lovers out there George had made an excellent point of highlighting what I meant. If you read his first post, "greasing the wheels" sound like "Santander, a spanish company paid Ferrari to lay off Kimi and hire alonso, a spanish driver". After many clarifications from myself and him, the phrase "greasing the wheels" means that Santander was a factor in Kimi's dismissal. As I have full confidence in our TP and his objectivity and fairness, I believe him. so where was the flaw? The flaw was in our behavior when we filled in the blanks on his comment. The problem is that, once explained enoug, the Santander money argument becomes really trivial. So, a sponsor was a factor. That is not new and that is hardly different than what happens with every driver whenever they close a deal. Saying that Santander was a factor sounds as damning as saying that Nando's knowledge of the Italian language was a factor. Saying that "Santander greased the wheels" sounds a lot stronger.

- Finally, to some sense, even this thread is a case of cogitus interruptus. The mere mention of conspiracy theories had everybody filling in the blanks. Sadly, not the way I intended them to. I wish somebody with a better comprehension of English nuances and better skills at keeping things short and simple would grasp what I meant

Yep I think it was just language differences that maybe threw this thread off (it was my whole intention at the start of this thread to say the whole Santander thing was essentially a non-issue as was Todt being a former Ferrari boss). Language was a problem both in the way we wrote and interpreted our posts (showing that such short phrases can need a lot of explanation otherwise they can be misinterpreted) and also in the sense that for me, conspiracy theory has a very negative association (foil hats and all that) - which was maybe why my post(s) was a little aggressive (aggressive isn't the right word, but I have a hangover).

[Quiet One 15]

Yep I think it was just language differences that maybe threw this thread off (it was my whole intention at the start of this thread to say the whole Santander thing was essentially a non-issue as was Todt being a former Ferrari boss). Language was a problem both in the way we wrote and interpreted our posts (showing that such short phrases can need a lot of explanation otherwise they can be misinterpreted) and also in the sense that for me, conspiracy theory has a very negative association (foil hats and all that) - which was maybe why my post(s) was a little aggressive (aggressive isn't the right word, but I have a hangover).

Guessed as much! Of course, maybe you are just acting as if you agreed with me just to give me a false sense of confidence, right? Right? Ohhh yes, I know how you work! You are with them! It's that Santander satellite that jams my cellphone signal! Those voices coming through the toilet calling me...

Seriously, my posts end up being way longer than intended precisely because I always feel like language gets in the way of the ideas I try to convey. I keep looking for the exact nuance to the phrase...and it comes out as just a bunch of incomprehensible garbage

[AleHop 0]

Change your habits... and find a girlfriend!!!

A conspiracy theorist girlfriend is what some guys need here, I would say.

Or, as maure said, a plant girlfriend may suit them if they just want her for a laugh. Or maybe not?

[maure 1]

Ok, I will try once again, because my posts did seem more confusing than clarifying. Please read carefully

- When I talk about conspiracy theories, I am not talking about who killed JFK (not yet, this was supposed to be a series, but this is beyond my capabilities). I am merely talking about the basic reasoning. CT seems to have a somewhat stronger sense in English than in Spanish, judging from your reactions.

- For better understanding, I will chose an example and terminology I used other times: what U.Ecco calls "cogitus interruptus" (geddit?). He illustrates this reasoning with a guy showing you a box of matches and telling you "see?". You will probably not get it, so he might add: "there are seven matches, now you get it?" with a knowing smile. Sooner or later, you will build an argument fill in the blanks, but the fact is that the other guy just showed you a box of matches with seven matches in it.

- Call it cogitus interruptus, call it a CT reasoning, it's the same. It is not an actual argument. The fact that most of us use them in every day discourses does not make it any more valid. I showed you an extreme case (my friend's) of how bad it can end. If the friggin' Santander story ends up being right, it will not belie the fact that merely pointing out that Santander is Spanish and so is Nando was a weak supporting argument in its favour to begin with. Like I said, I can easily imagine another cogitus interruptus against it with much many ties to Ferrari and it's management.

- Yes, we use it many times to illustrate our feelings, hunches, and such. Yes, we are entitled to have our opinions, and opinions usually are not based on fully documented, thoroughly researched subjects. But if you ask yourself if your argument isn't just a case of cogitus interruptus would help you make a better, stronger case.

- Back to Santander for all those Santander lovers out there George had made an excellent point of highlighting what I meant. If you read his first post, "greasing the wheels" sound like "Santander, a spanish company paid Ferrari to lay off Kimi and hire alonso, a spanish driver". After many clarifications from myself and him, the phrase "greasing the wheels" means that Santander was a factor in Kimi's dismissal. As I have full confidence in our TP and his objectivity and fairness, I believe him. so where was the flaw? The flaw was in our behavior when we filled in the blanks on his comment. The problem is that, once explained enoug, the Santander money argument becomes really trivial. So, a sponsor was a factor. That is not new and that is hardly different than what happens with every driver whenever they close a deal. Saying that Santander was a factor sounds as damning as saying that Nando's knowledge of the Italian language was a factor. Saying that "Santander greased the wheels" sounds a lot stronger.

- Finally, to some sense, even this thread is a case of cogitus interruptus. The mere mention of conspiracy theories had everybody filling in the blanks. Sadly, not the way I intended them to. I wish somebody with a better comprehension of English nuances and better skills at keeping things short and simple would grasp what I meant

Sorry, buddy, you slipped in the same place.

I think it was Hegel who stated that we _always_ fill in the blanks. The example he gave (again, if I remember any of this correctly) is that upon being shown an apple, we conclude it is an apple. The problem is that you are only seeing _half_ the apple and you are _making_up_ the side you don't see in order to conclude it is in fact an apple and not half an apple or the hollowed out skin of half an apple or a simple prop. You get it. I'm sure... because you are filling in the blanks.

Again, the term "conspiracy theory" is derogative. It is not intended to bring forth any proof and, in fact, it is used so that no proof is necessary to dismiss it.

Now, your first post spoke of conspiracy theorists being wrong most of the time. The problem is that, so are we all, that is, wrong. Begin wrong is the normal state of things. Even in science (as I have mention elsewhen), 99.999% of scientists are wrong 99.999% of the time. The pace of "right" is extremely slow even under careful experimental and methodological conditions.

Regarding F1, it is all a conspiracy... if you choose to call it that. It's evident it is a mess... if you choose to call it that. But it can also be the most honest sport in the world... if you choose to call it that. By calling F1 something in particular, it doesn't make it so.

Regarding the opinions that F1 fans have of the sport, it is the same thing. There is no "absolute proof" of the spygate, crashgate, or any gate. There is no "absolute proof" of anything on the planet or beyond because there are no absolutes... if you choose to call "them" that.

So, chill. Your friend could've been right about the outcome and... so what? That would've not implied that his theory was (in)correct in any way whatsoever. You must be able to understand that... if you fill in the blanks.

[Quiet One 15]

Sorry, buddy, you slipped in the same place.

I think it was Hegel who stated that we _always_ fill in the blanks. The example he gave (again, if I remember any of this correctly) is that upon being shown an apple, we conclude it is an apple. The problem is that you are only seeing _half_ the apple and you are _making_up_ the side you don't see in order to conclude it is in fact an apple and not half an apple or the hollowed out skin of half an apple or a simple prop. You get it. I'm sure... because you are filling in the blanks.

Again, the term "conspiracy theory" is derogative. It is not intended to bring forth any proof and, in fact, it is used so that no proof is necessary to dismiss it.

Now, your first post spoke of conspiracy theorists being wrong most of the time. The problem is that, so are we all, that is, wrong. Begin wrong is the normal state of things. Even in science (as I have mention elsewhen), 99.999% of scientists are wrong 99.999% of the time. The pace of "right" is extremely slow even under careful experimental and methodological conditions.

Regarding F1, it is all a conspiracy... if you choose to call it that. It's evident it is a mess... if you choose to call it that. But it can also be the most honest sport in the world... if you choose to call it that. By calling F1 something in particular, it doesn't make it so.

Regarding the opinions that F1 fans have of the sport, it is the same thing. There is no "absolute proof" of the spygate, crashgate, or any gate. There is no "absolute proof" of anything on the planet or beyond because there are no absolutes... if you choose to call "them" that.

So, chill. Your friend could've been right about the outcome and... so what? That would've not implied that his theory was (in)correct in any way whatsoever. You must be able to understand that... if you fill in the blanks.

Sorry my friend, but your long stay at beautiful Oyashima has ruined your perception of Western logics . I can't even reply because your points, although interesting bear little or no relevance to the matter at hand.

I can see that the terms conspiracy theory sound more derisory in English than in Spanish (in Spanish, at least afaik, they are derisory if meant in a "CIA caused the Katrina hurricane", but you can say that you love watching the X-files for their conspiracy theories without looking like an a##...except for me, I hate X-files) but that's it. Everything else you posted was clarified previously or are just your opinions (as your idea about F1) which, frankly, are far beyond the scope of my posts.

So far, Cav with his mentions of Hanlon's and Occam's razors is the one who will take the big fluffy bear home (no, that's not me)

[yurp 0]

Ok, I will try once again, because my posts did seem more confusing than clarifying. Please read carefully

- When I talk about conspiracy theories, I am not talking about who killed JFK (not yet, this was supposed to be a series, but this is beyond my capabilities). I am merely talking about the basic reasoning. CT seems to have a somewhat stronger sense in English than in Spanish, judging from your reactions.

- For better understanding, I will chose an example and terminology I used other times: what U.Ecco calls "cogitus interruptus" (geddit?). He illustrates this reasoning with a guy showing you a box of matches and telling you "see?". You will probably not get it, so he might add: "there are seven matches, now you get it?" with a knowing smile. Sooner or later, you will build an argument fill in the blanks, but the fact is that the other guy just showed you a box of matches with seven matches in it.

Agreed - I think the use of the English term 'conspiracy theory' has mislead the thread a bit.

Filling in the blanks with ideas based on preconceptions is certainly a common practice (as humans we rely on this ability day in day out) and one which can lead us to all sorts of conclusions (or assumptions). Until tested we can't know if any of these assumptions have basis in reality. Some are conspiracy theories, many are simple logic and some are plain delusions. Interestingly a refutation of any test of an assumption by its proponents almost always indicates its failings.

[Quiet One 15]

Agreed - I think the use of the English term 'conspiracy theory' has mislead the thread a bit.

Filling in the blanks with ideas based on preconceptions is certainly a common practice (as humans we rely on this ability day in day out) and one which can lead us to all sorts of conclusions (or assumptions). Until tested we can't know if any of these assumptions have basis in reality. Some are conspiracy theories, many are simple logic and some are plain delusions. Interestingly a refutation of any test of an assumption by its proponents almost always indicates its failings.

Filling in the blanks is only half of what you need for a cogitus interruptus.

I would explain more, but it seems it is not my day for communicating my ideas over the net in another language. Sorry

[maure 1]

Sorry my friend, but your long stay at beautiful Oyashima has ruined your perception of Western logics . I can't even reply because your points, although interesting bear little or no relevance to the matter at hand.

I can see that the terms conspiracy theory sound more derisory in English than in Spanish (in Spanish, at least afaik, they are derisory if meant in a "CIA caused the Katrina hurricane", but you can say that you love watching the X-files for their conspiracy theories without looking like an a##...except for me, I hate X-files) but that's it. Everything else you posted was clarified previously or are just your opinions (as your idea about F1) which, frankly, are far beyond the scope of my posts.

So far, Cav with his mentions of Hanlon's and Occam's razors is the one who will take the big fluffy bear home (no, that's not me)

What can I say. You mentioned "basic reasoning" and "cogitus interruptus". I've shown you how the first is unattainable in most of what people commonly refer to as "knowledge" and I've shown you that the second is the only possible "method" available to most people.

Cav is trying to make sense of things... as you are. However, you should probably understand that "trying" and "succeeding" are very different things. If any of the two of you were to succeed, neither would post as you do.

You want the moon... but you fail to see that you already have it, up there, in the sky... most nights.

[AleHop 0]

If you have an average knowledge of humans in different circumstances and under different amounts of stress/pressure you don't ever need to talk about conspiracy theories. It's like police, they don't think about conspiracy theories they just try to find answers to questions. Very old questions like cui prodest. A different matter is that you need solid proofs to put someone in jail, which is not what an internet forum is about.

It's stupid to adhere to every single CT as much as it's stupid to refuse them all just saying there's no solid proof to back them up. You just need to have a look at how IPCC or WHO/OMS work. Incompetence, greed and money... Perfect mix.

[maure 1]

A different matter is that you need solid proofs to put someone in jail...

I so wish this were true.

It's stupid to adhere to every single CT as much as it's stupid to refuse them all just saying there's no solid proof to back them up.

Good summary.

[Quiet One 15]

What can I say. You mentioned "basic reasoning" and "cogitus interruptus". I've shown you how the first is unattainable in most of what people commonly refer to as "knowledge" and I've shown you that the second is the only possible "method" available to most people.

Cav is trying to make sense of things... as you are. However, you should probably understand that "trying" and "succeeding" are very different things. If any of the two of you were to succeed, neither would post as you do.

You want the moon... but you fail to see that you already have it, up there, in the sky... most nights.

Now we are talking! you understand my intentions, although you disagree with them. That is something I can cope with

Yes, trying and succeeding are very different things. My aim wasnever to succeed, but to try. This isn't the definitive guide for love and understanding, but that does not liberates me of my self imposed task of trying

One of my obsessions is miscommunication. I tried to point one of the million every day traps we usually fall into when communicating. Like I said, it is something universal, as if pointing that everybody (me included) have some useless, vestigial organ (like hair, for example ) This wasn't aimed at forbid it or otherwise get rid of it permanently. Just an example.

Somehow, I ended up opening a can of worms and now everybody is coming with their favorite CT and defending it...oh, the irony! Yet, like you say, I still want the moon precisely because it is up there in the sky I mnight die before I get an inch closer to it, but I will die a happier man than if I just enjoyed its reflection in a fountain. That is my own nature, I guess and thus something I am not able to properly share, I am sorry.

[AleHop 0]

I so wish this were true.

I know, but I didn't want people to say I am a conspiracy theorist.

What qualities make a conspiracy theory worthy of respect?

When has a conspiracy theory been proved right? Or wrong?

Should I believe in the swine flu vaccine or the global warming theories* because they are solidly backed up by facts?

Facts? Facts? Facts? Where? Have you seen them? How stupid are you?

Ok, now we can agree stupidity and CT are not always linked.

* Put your favorite CT there

[Quiet One 15]

I know, but I didn't want people to say I am a conspiracy theorist.

What qualities make a conspiracy theory worthy of respect?

When has a conspiracy theory been proved right? Or wrong?

Should I believe in the swine flu vaccine or the global warming theories* because they are solidly backed up by facts?

Facts? Facts? Facts? Where? Have you seen them? How stupid are you?

Ok, now we can agree stupidity and CT are not always linked.

* Put your favorite CT there

You forgot to tap the side of your nose knowingly...

[maure 1]

Now we are talking! you understand my intentions, although you disagree with them. That is something I can cope with

I don't disagree, my friend. I'm just trying to pass along some information to the traveler, be that you. A tree over there. A pond beyond that hill. You know.

Yes, trying and succeeding are very different things. My aim wasnever to succeed, but to try. This isn't the definitive guide for love and understanding, but that does not liberates me of my self imposed task of trying

Good on you and, in fact, good on us for having you around trying. This is an interesting thread and, as you can see, many think so too.

One of my obsessions is miscommunication. I tried to point one of the million every day traps we usually fall into when communicating. Like I said, it is something universal, as if pointing that everybody (me included) have some useless, vestigial organ (like hair, for example ) This wasn't aimed at forbid it or otherwise get rid of it permanently. Just an example.

The reason why you think I speak of topics other than the one you brought up is because I am focusing on an event far more basic that miscommunication, namely, miscogitation. See, when you speak of "the million every day traps we usually fall into when communicating" you are talking about something that has happened after "the million every day traps we usually fall into when cogitating", or in simpler words, when _thinking_.

It takes a great deal of discipline to _think_ properly. Those few that achieve it then have to worry about communicating their thoughts... which is a comparatively far simpler task save for one problem, namely, communication requires at least two individuals... and the chances of two people that think properly getting together to communicate are minimal at best. There are too few of them. One in ten million at best.

And so, the biggest problem is not in communicating, it is in thinking. Often times, what is poorly communicated is already fvcked from the start because it is poorly thought through.

Somehow, I ended up opening a can of worms and now everybody is coming with their favorite CT and defending it...oh, the irony! Yet, like you say, I still want the moon precisely because it is up there in the sky I mnight die before I get an inch closer to it, but I will die a happier man than if I just enjoyed its reflection in a fountain. That is my own nature, I guess and thus something I am not able to properly share, I am sorry.

In old times, some Samurai liked to have a "drinking room". Like a tea room but for... well, drinking. They used to call them, "three moon rooms" because there was one in the sky, a second one floating on the moat, and a third one brought to your lips on the surface of a cup of sake.

[maure 1]

Here is a shorter and simpler "answer".

The mind is built to imbibe sensorial information in order to reproduce a "virtual" model of reality. When reaching adulthood, the process most often reverses, meaning, the adult tries to enforce his/her "virtual" model of reality upon reality itself. Thus, the mind deceives most of us as we believe our conception of reality supersedes the actual thing.

The result is that heads knocking on walls are common events.