--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > new.morning wrote: > > Great I'll keep posting what you believe to be "conspiracy theories" > then. I know a lot of New Age folks and Indiaphiles find such things > entertaining so that's why I post them.
> I suspect if I had told you > back in the 70's that the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag operation you > would have thought me nuts. Well, I would have thought you quite foolish if you using (your apparrently repeated flawed logic) that governament manipulation happns, and therefore all conspiracy theories must be true. Gulf of Tonkin was quite odd from the beginning. It was hardly a small fringe of improbabilists that raised major issues regarding it early on and over the years. To say during Johnson's reign that the goverment was distorting, lying about, and manipulating the news from and on Viet-nam was hardly a fringe view. It was clear to all but the brain dead. (Those in fraternities ... :)) My point from my past post was: Of the 10,000's of conspiracy theories that were present in the 60's and/or 70's and/or 80s that have not panned out -- only a few have born any seeds of credibility -- far from a 1:1 correspondence between conspiracy theories and their actual fruition 10-30 years later. If you disagree with that, which you appear to perhaps be doing, ok. Paranoid on! > The reason some people reject what they feel are conspiracy theories is > that they don't want to be seen as "kooks" themselves if they entertain > them. I am sure there is some small population of very insecure people who react this way. In contrast, personally, I don't give much probability to theories that have little or no evidence -- and have "odd" features. Other things, with mounting credible evidence, I give higher and higher assessements of plausibility and probability. You on the other hand, appear to be stuck in far more black and white world -- giving high probability to theories with little evidence -- and apparently casting those who don't share such weak assessments as having some mental imbalance. > Therefore its an ego thing. Thats quite a huge and bizarre jump of logic if you are trying to imply its an ego thing with all people who disagree with your theories. If you simply mean that, extending your above thout, that some small population of very insecure people also have ego issues, well, that seems quite plausible. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
