Conspiracy Theory

[lifted*fox]

7 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I respect your view Daz but you do sound really angry with the world - a bit like Toddy and Rog do.

 

I’m just not sure I’ve got the energy to feel this bitter and twisted about stuff that’s out of my control or influence 

 

I'm not angry man - you know me by now dude - I post in an overly sweary and expressive style, to some extent I can express myself in the same way in real life. It's colourful, expressive, different. It makes me happy / laugh and judging by my rep points it makes other people happy / laugh too. 

 

But I'm pretty calm and placid for the most part and mostly at peace with what a joke the world is - being angry won't do anything about it.

 

Am I bitter and twisted? Sometimes, it's hard not to be. I don't like feeling like I'm being ****ed every day by people who I have zero affinity with, zero belief in and zero respect for.

 

People are far too happy to believe what they're told - do what they're told to do, sit down and take it. It's what 'they' say so we'd better believe it. 

 

Then there's people who see right through it and feel utterly aggrieved that we, as human beings have allowed ourselves to be treated in such a way - with such contempt from those 'above' us. It's ****ed up - and yes, sometimes it makes me angry, but more than anything it makes me feel sad and very empty.   

Edited 17 February 2018 by lifted*fox

[Gerard]

5 minutes ago, Magictv said:

Just leaving this here...

 

 

 

1.3% chances happen all the time and we're only mentioning it because it's observed. We could use a different metric on all sorts of things and there would be even longer shots happening but we only mention it because it's observed.

 

I was as pissed off as anyone about the big four teams all avoiding each other but the draw was held live and we seen the balls being picked out seemingly random from a transparent box. It's a big leap of faith to think Michael Owen was in on it. 

[Izzy]

8 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

 

I'm not angry man - you know me by now dude - I post in an overly sweary and expressive style, to some extent I can express myself in the same way in real life. It's colourful, expressive, different. It makes me happy / laugh and judging by my rep points it makes other people happy / laugh too. 

 

But I'm pretty calm and placid for the most part and mostly at peace with what a joke the world is - being angry won't do anything about it.

 

Am I bitter and twisted? Sometimes, it's hard not to be. I don't like feeling like I'm being ****ed every day by people who I have zero affinity with, zero belief in and zero respect for.

 

People are far too happy to believe what they're told - do what they're told to do, sit down and take it. It's what 'they' say so we'd better believe it. 

 

Then there's people who see right through it and feel utterly aggrieved that we, as human beings have allowed ourselves to be treated in such a way - with such contempt from those 'above' us. It's ****ed up - and yes, sometimes it makes me angry, but more than anything it makes me feel sad and very empty.   

Although we’re very different, I can’t help but like you Daz. I bet you’d be good to have a beer with 

[lifted*fox]

Just now, Izzy Muzzett said:

Although we’re very different, I can’t help but like you Daz. I bet you’d be good to have a beer with 

 

Likewise and any time you want to go for a beer man, you let me know. It'd be a pleasure, I'm sure. 

[Alf Bentley]

55 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Chance of second team drawn for each tie keeping big clubs apart: 4/7 x 3/5 x 2/3 = 24/105 = 22.85% chance overall (was inevitable by 4th tie)?

 

Is that right, maths bods?

 

18 minutes ago, Gerard said:

 

It's 22.85% actually.

 

Sorry I've spoiled you Saturday night by making you look a cvnt but tbf it was always going to happen at some point with two hours left of the night. 

 

 

 

In ahead of the Gerard.

I'm assuming Gerard is indeed a maths genius, as proclaimed by Izzy, seeing as his answer agrees with mine. 

 

You might have spoiled Izzy's Saturday night and made him look a cvnt, but you've made my Saturday night and given people the erroneous impression that I'm NOT a cvnt! 

 

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I respect your view Daz but you do sound really angry with the world - a bit like Toddy and Rog do.

 

I’m just not sure I’ve got the energy to feel this bitter and twisted about stuff that’s out of my control or influence 

You need to build your positivity facade a bit higher, if you want it to hide all the negativity and bitterness in posts like this, Izzy me old China.

Edited 17 February 2018 by Rogstanley

[ozleicester]

reading the last two pages..im pretty sure that "maths" is a conspiracy!!

[Colourmy]

12 hours ago, Webbo said:

So how come some cancers have been cured?

 

Because it would be considered virtually impossible and very suspicious to not have made any inroads into curing/slowing cancers after the money and years of research that has gone into the cancer cure industry. Science is so powerful now, that we can do virtually anything we want to and the whole premise that we can't eliminate some rogue cells or replace them with alternatives just doesn't really make any sense to most people, so the requirement to dangle the odd carrot to offer hope to millions is the answer. Pharmaceutical companies are probably the lifeblood of every major developed country and the 6-12 month respite they give to someone with cancer ticks just the right amount of boxes. Some countries can barely grow enough food to feed themselves, some countries can't grow food to feed themselves, simple economics suggests that we cannot have people living longer than they do and not curing cancer plays along nicely to that tune. If cancer was regional or restricted to just a few countries, it would have been consigned to the history books years ago.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

 

Because it would be considered virtually impossible and very suspicious to not have made any inroads into curing/slowing cancers after the money and years of research that has gone into the cancer cure industry. Science is so powerful now, that we can do virtually anything we want to and the whole premise that we can't eliminate some rogue cells or replace them with alternatives just doesn't really make any sense to most people, so the requirement to dangle the odd carrot to offer hope to millions is the answer. Pharmaceutical companies are probably the lifeblood of every major developed country and the 6-12 month respite they give to someone with cancer ticks just the right amount of boxes. Some countries can barely grow enough food to feed themselves, some countries can't grow food to feed themselves, simple economics suggests that we cannot have people living longer than they do and not curing cancer plays along nicely to that tune. If cancer was regional or restricted to just a few countries, it would have been consigned to the history books years ago.

No offence mate but that sounds like utter bollox.

[Colourmy]

1 minute ago, Webbo said:

No offence mate but that sounds like utter bollox.

The insightful debate right there!

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Colourmy said:

The insightful debate right there!

Science can do anything but chooses not to so they can control the population. So how come we're living longer than ever? Where's the economic benefit of killing off consumers?

 

These conspiracy theories are totally moronic.

[ozleicester]

On 1/19/2018 at 22:03, Suzie the Fox said:

I got a new black away shirt for Xmas this year. So far if i wear it LCFC do NOT lose. The only time i havent worn it on match day since i got it was when we played Liverpool and lost 2-1. 

 

How spooky is that! 

One month later... how is this holding up?

[Suzie the Fox]

1 minute ago, ozleicester said:

One month later... how is this holding up?

Don't ask  

[Facecloth]

On 19/01/2018 at 14:03, Suzie the Fox said:

I got a new black away shirt for Xmas this year. So far if i wear it LCFC do NOT lose. The only time i havent worn it on match day since i got it was when we played Liverpool and lost 2-1. 

 

How spooky is that! 

So we don't lose, except for that time we lost? 

[Colourmy]

8 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Science can do anything but chooses not to so they can control the population. So how come we're living longer than ever? Where's the economic benefit of killing off consumers?

 

These conspiracy theories are totally moronic.

It isn't a conspiracy theory with me per se, I simply accept somethings have to happen and going against natural selection on a truly grand, a worldwide scale would not benefit anything or anyone. It would evolve into a brutal, barbaric each to their own world where regression would prevail. Sorry I didn't answer the other point of living longer. We make better lifestyle choices now, we medicate better, we work safer and in safer environments, we are safer in vehicles that crash, we just do things better and safer than we did in the 1950's. It was obvious we were going to benefit from that.

Edited 18 February 2018 by Colourmy

[ozleicester]

11 minutes ago, Suzie the Fox said:

Don't ask  

CIA 

[Alf Bentley]

13 minutes ago, ozleicester said:

CIA 

 

C&A? Cheaper at the club shop, surely....or maybe not.

[Colourmy]

I think you only need to look at the number of deaths in the UK yearly to see what effect it would have on the population in just a few years if no-one was to die from it anymore. 163k a year in 2014, so the next year that would be 326k extra people still living, nevermind the countless more that have had it for a year or so that have been cured and aren't now going to be a statistic, A million more people in just a few years, never mind the people that have since had children because they are now not going to die. To suggest that that would be a stable and workable situation is emotive and not logical.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Colourmy said:

I think you only need to look at the number of deaths in the UK yearly to see what effect it would have on the population in just a few years if no-one was to die from it anymore. 163k a year in 2014, so the next year that would be 326k extra people still living, nevermind the countless more that have had it for a year or so that have been cured and aren't now going to be a statistic, A million more people in just a few years, never mind the people that have since had children because they are now not going to die. To suggest that that would be a stable and workable situation is emotive and not logical.

What does that prove?

[Colourmy]

13 minutes ago, Webbo said:

What does that prove?

It doesn't prove anything sadly. It just means that countries will have more people living longer on infrastructures and economic programmes that were never designed for it. It sometimes seems a cruel notion but when you hit retirement age, you are now just a drain on already scarce resources, you are a negative and not a positive for the economy and as cancer is particularly prevalent in the 70 plus age range, how would that benefit the economy by keeping them alive if the only likely result is another 5-10 years of pension payments and probably medical care for other ailments that have now taken hold?

I don't get too involved with the tin hat mob but I will always look at certain things logically and make a rational decision myself and cancer curing is one that when everything is put together and digested, the outcome is what I make this view on. By curing cancer, you have to then cure-all, not just cherry pick the people that will positively input to the economy for 10-20 years. Because we are not at the point of selective living just yet, the only option is to not offer it at all. Apart from catching it early, removing and keeping in check from then on with checks and medication, there isn't really a cure, it is simply putting it to sleep, temporarily. Speak to any medical practitioner, they will always say that cure will not help, it will hinder. Curing people of one thing would then likely allow 2-3 other things to manifest. Simply delaying the inevitable.  

Edited 18 February 2018 by Colourmy

[SpacedX]

On 17/01/2018 at 22:26, sm1 said:

If you're interested in 9/11 being an inside job go to the Corbett Report. He's done dozens of podcasts about it and google Indira Singh.

??? Are you serious James Corbett??? 

 

On 17/01/2018 at 22:26, sm1 said:

He's done dozens of podcasts about it 

Of course he has, he manufactures this shite to order to hoodwink gullible and scientifically illiterate Americans that declare themselves "awake" over social media and the comments section of YouTube, whilst branding anyone offering rational criticism or objective evidence as "sheep" or a "paid government shill". Conspiracy theory is little more than a production line that has burgeoned over the internet and naive buy into. 

 

On 17/01/2018 at 22:26, sm1 said:

google Indira Singh.

Why? Indira Singh is yet another career conspiracy theorist. If you haven't noticed so called "trutherism" is a global business which is precisely why if you genuinely "follow the money" as you people are so fond of saying, you'll arrive at David Icke's latest Stateside arena tour or Alex Jones' seven acre estate. To these people at the top of the tree, conspiracy addicts are the low hanging fruit ripe for the plucking harvested via self-referencing agenda ridden farmed websites that skew and manipulate search engine responses. They ensnare and sell the illusion of empowerment to the gullible with the illusion of knowledge "truth" when in actual fact, nothing could be further from it. They prey upon emotional investment through agenda ignorance, fear and prejudice which is precisely why these views are so visceral making huge money through cherry picked factoid and click-bait confirmation bias.   

 

So to clarify. You are referencing two conspiracy theorists, that perpetrate this conspiracy theory, discussing this conspiracy theory as proof of this conspiracy theory? 

 

This simple concept may well help you in future...

 

objectivity

ˌɒbdʒɛkˈtɪvɪti,ˌɒbdʒɪkˈtɪvɪti/

noun

noun: objectivity

1. the quality of being objective.

   "the piece lacked any objectivity"

   synonyms:

   impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality "the ideals of journalistic accuracy and objectivity"

   antonyms:

   subjectivity, bias, prejudice

[Benguin]

33 minutes ago, Line-X said:

??? Are you serious James Corbett??? 

 

Of course he has, he manufactures this shite to order to hoodwink gullible and scientifically illiterate Americans that declare themselves "awake" over social media and the comments section of YouTube, whilst branding anyone offering rational criticism or objective evidence as "sheep" or a "paid government shill". Conspiracy theory is little more than a production line that has burgeoned over the internet and naive buy into. 

 

Why? Indira Singh is yet another career conspiracy theorist. If you haven't noticed so called "trutherism" is a global business which is precisely why if you genuinely "follow the money" as you people are so fond of saying, you'll arrive at David Icke's latest Stateside arena tour or Alex Jones' seven acre estate. To these people at the top of the tree, conspiracy addicts are the low hanging fruit ripe for the plucking harvested via self-referencing agenda ridden farmed websites that skew and manipulate search engine responses. They ensnare and sell the illusion of empowerment to the gullible with the illusion of knowledge "truth" when in actual fact, nothing could be further from it. They prey upon emotional investment through agenda ignorance, fear and prejudice which is precisely why these views are so visceral making huge money through cherry picked factoid and click-bait confirmation bias.   

 

So to clarify. You are referencing two conspiracy theorists, that perpetrate this conspiracy theory, discussing this conspiracy theory as proof of this conspiracy theory? 

 

This simple concept may well help you in future...

 

objectivity

ˌɒbdʒɛkˈtɪvɪti,ˌɒbdʒɪkˈtɪvɪti/

noun

noun: objectivity

1. the quality of being objective.

   "the piece lacked any objectivity"

   synonyms:

   impartiality, absence of bias/prejudice, fairness, fair-mindedness, equitableness, equitability, even-handedness, justness, justice, open-mindedness, disinterest, disinterestedness, detachment, dispassion, dispassionateness, neutrality "the ideals of journalistic accuracy and objectivity"

   antonyms:

   subjectivity, bias, prejudice

For the most part you are right but some turn out to be true and whether they're horseshit or not, some are enjoyable to read/listen too.

[SpacedX]

On 19/01/2018 at 15:07, Fox Ulike said:

It is possible that the whole thing was orchestrated by a man living in a cave on a remote mountain on the other side of the world. That could have happened.

 

 

Indeed it did. Most forget that he was son of a billionaire construction magnate whilst the conspiracy theories fixated on some nefarious American shadow government conveniently ignore Saudi complicity together with the network of donors that had funded the Soviet Jihad. There is the same level of ignorance concerning the Al-Queda orchestrated an attack on the WTC in 1993 in which a 1,336lb gas enhanced truck bomb was detonated in the basement car park intended to topple the North Tower into the South. It was then determined that the use of hi-jacked aircraft as flying bombs would effectively bring down both towers. 

[Colourmy]

3 minutes ago, Line-X said:

Indeed it did. Most forget that he was son of a billionaire construction magnate whilst the conspiracy theories fixated on some nefarious American shadow government conveniently ignore Saudi complicity together with the network of donors that had funded the Soviet Jihad. There is the same level of ignorance concerning the Al-Queda orchestrated an attack on the WTC in 1993 in which a 1,336lb gas enhanced truck bomb was detonated in the basement car park intended to topple the North Tower into the South. It was then determined that the use of hi-jacked aircraft as flying bombs would effectively bring down both towers. 

I'm too much of a cynical man to accept that this was not part of a planned operation with many people involved and that are not of Arabic descent.

[SpacedX]

3 minutes ago, Benguin said:

For the most part you are right but some turn out to be true and whether they're horseshit or not, some are enjoyable to read/listen too.

Indeed, through disclosure or genuine whistleblowing because they have been impossible to conceal - but as I have said before, should we then conclude that every terrorist atrocity is a false flag simply because of Operation Northwoods?

 

5 minutes ago, Benguin said:

whether they're horseshit or not, some are enjoyable to read/listen too.

Disagree. 

 

Conspiracy theory is a damaging creed and should not be confused with genuine scepticism or a true objective critical faculty. 

 

To these people the scientific method is pure anathema, they have no conception of burden of proof and often outwardly loath and resent the expertise that has seemingly eluded them. Precisely why Trump target and panders to them in his tweets and decrying the 'global elite'. Many are simply angry and often with good reason feel disenfranchised. Like I said, ripe for the plucking in respect of agenda ridden conspiracy theory.

 

Most disturbing of all is the sickening levels of antisemitism that these beliefs tend to endorse.