Take the Wacco conspiracy quiz

[meherc]

I didn't know there was a conspiracy theory about Neighborhood Watches but now that I do, my score is zero. Though I do think there is a dog conspiracy where they all rise up at midnite and have animated conversations about how to overthrow the govt,, often mistaken by the unthinking as barking.

Scott,

I was looking through my writings on gang stalking hoping to find this quote but I'm not having any luck ... can you tell me where you found it? ... thanks!

[Alex]

I didn't know there was a conspiracy theory about Neighborhood Watches but now that I do, my score is zero. Though I do think there is a dog conspiracy where they all rise up at midnite and have animated conversations about how to overthrow the govt,, often mistaken by the unthinking as barking.

So even though frequent real barking after midnight is really an owner being inconsiderate and rude, you are saying sometimes the dogs are in fact having doggy conspiratorial conversations after midnight being misinterpreted by 'unthinking' humans who imagine they're hearing something? Not following this point or how it adds to any of the subjects on this thread.

[Dixon]

Alexia, Marilyn was just trying to make a joke.

So even though frequent real barking after midnight is really an owner being inconsiderate and rude, you are saying sometimes the dogs are in fact having doggy conspiratorial conversations after midnight being misinterpreted by 'unthinking' humans who imagine they're hearing something? Not following this point or how it adds to any of the subjects on this thread.

[podfish]

Alexia, Marilyn was just trying to make a joke.

so was Alexia?

[kpage9]

Alexia that was a JOKE!

So even though frequent real barking after midnight is really an owner being inconsiderate and rude, you are saying sometimes the dogs are in fact having doggy conspiratorial conversations after midnight being misinterpreted by 'unthinking' humans who imagine they're hearing something? Not following this point or how it adds to any of the subjects on this thread.

[Alex]

Alexia, Marilyn was just trying to make a joke.

Veiled personal agenda alert. I like that you have zero tolerance for BS, Dixon and insist on calling things exactly as they really are, but it can't be done without all the information. Reread her post knowing it was made hours after her being really annoyed about being called about her own dogs umpteenth time barking after midnight.

Doesn't your BS meter now say this was using the thread as an excuse to make a veiled personal complaint, not a clear thought about a joke concerning the thread content, probably why it was clumsy and made no sense anyway? I had to call the deceptive BS not liking seeing the forum and good-will of people here being used.

[Dixon]

Alexia, thanks for supplying the missing information. It now appears that what looked to most of us like a clumsy joke by Marilyn was probably a covert dig at you. And, FWIW, I share your anger at inconsiderate dog owners.

There would have been way less confusion had you supplied the missing info in your initial post, or maybe emailed Marilyn privately about it.

Veiled personal agenda alert...

[Alex]

Alexia, thanks for supplying the missing information. It now appears that what looked to most of us like a clumsy joke by Marilyn was probably a covert dig at you. And, FWIW, I share your anger at inconsiderate dog owners.

There would have been way less confusion had you supplied the missing info in your initial post, or maybe emailed Marilyn privately about it.

Thanks for getting it Dixon. I sure would have been more direct as you suggested if my free speech directly to this person about barking had not been forbidden by Barry a year ago. I was trying to expose the BS without crossing the line by showing the disingenuousness of the ‘joke’.

This little drama though is actually a great example of what I think is the crux of the problem with either information or disinformation being contributed to the ‘collective ether’ about the controversial subjects in this thread. I also suspect that what we are all individually contributing to that ether with our awareness really matters because not all able to be Martin Luther Kings, it’s the best... or worst the common person can do for either positive change or the perpetuation of lies.

We just saw people here instantly and vigorously defending their best assessment of the known facts. But when additional facts were known, the best assessment changed dramatically. In the meantime, a lie that sounded good was bought into and gained strength.

The best we can ever do without direct personal experience is gather as much data as possible and make the most intelligent, common sense assessment. But if an issue has 100 crucial data points and you only know 10, your opinion is limited to your best assessment of the 10.

The internet blew open the doors to massive amounts of both profound accurate information and intentionally manipulative disinformation. That does not mean that enough data points cannot be collected to determine an accurate truth. The world is still full of extremely intelligent, educated, curious and/or discerning people who are very grateful they can now find each other to gather, share and compare notes to make the best assessment.

But being ‘Researched and Informed’ about complex subjects takes a lot of time and effort with countless books, reports, interviews, documentaries, testimonies and conversations to sift through.

The information age also means that shocking, radical and deep new concepts, technologies and agendas have surfaced that are very threatening to the comfortable view of reality of many. Those who find these concepts unsettling frequently quickly latch onto and defend the shallow results of searches like “Why is (something) stupid?” instead of “What are the primary factors in (something).”

Therefore, the chasm between the level of awareness of the Deeply Researched and what is ultimately a state of fear, disinterest, denial or lack of time of the Shallowly Researched is getting huge, and lies quickly spread even by well meaning people if only 10 of 100 data points are known.

My greatest concern is that many of the more global complex topics listed in this thread, if true, are negatively impacting the world’s well being in profound ways and are being funded and allowed to proliferate by the tax dollars of those who, especially, are ignoring the fact that through the internet they have more info and power to organize and stop the proliferation of these problems than ever before.

It would also mean that the future will look back at these days as the common person blindly contributing numerous working hours per week out of his pocket to help fund the worst crimes against humanity in history, complacently leaving this legacy for his children.

That’s why I say becoming as researched and informed as possible, and contributing to the 100th monkey effect ether by getting past your own fears and helping to spread more correct data points is more than just all the common person can do, it’s a huge contribution. Conversely, it is a great disservice to humanity to contribute the data and energy that further embeds destructive lies and deception.

I and, you may be surprised at how many others around the world, long ago lost all doubt about the ugly truth of many of the threatening subjects listed here, have come to the same conclusions independently, and have moved on and are dealing with the new realities quite actively, clearheadedly and holding each other accountable for the accuracy of data points being put on the table.

I agree with the axiom that the opposite of love is fear.

If so, the most important attribute of growing more conscious is becoming more fearless.

[podfish]

Veiled personal agenda alert... Reread her post knowing it was made hours after her being really annoyed about being called about her own dogs umpteenth time barking after midnight.
...

so??

I suppose it's good to know the subtext when you're reading James Joyce, but glib remarks on Wacco just seem to stand on their own slight footing.

[Dixon]

...contributing to the 100th monkey effect...

I still hear people citing the "100th monkey effect" frequently. It's frustrating to me because the 100th monkey effect has been thoroughly and decisively debunked, but people still haven't gotten the message, and many don't seem to want to get it.

For those who don't know what it is, here's some info from the Wikipedia page: "The story of the hundredth monkey effect was published in Lyall Watson's foreword to Lawrence Blair's Rhythms of Vision in 1975...and spread with the appearance of Watson's 1979 book Lifetide. The claim is that unidentified scientists were conducting a study of macaque monkeys on the Japanese island of Koshima in 1952...These scientists purportedly observed that some of these monkeys learned to wash sweet potatoes,...Watson then claimed that the researchers observed that once a critical number of monkeys was reached—the so-called hundredth monkey—this previously learned behavior instantly spread across the water to monkeys on nearby islands...This story was further popularized by Ken Keyes, Jr. with the publication of his book The Hundredth Monkey."

The implication of this story is that the monkeys' all supposedly learning instantly how to wash sweet potatoes was a miraculous supernatural phenomenon, and that furthermore, if enough of us accept certain beliefs (such as antiwar, etc.) suddenly everyone will magically agree with us.

Leaving aside the somewhat fascist implications of magically forcing agreement, the important thing to note is that the story was a fraud; it never happened. When a researcher confronted Watson about this, he admitted it wasn't true, claiming that he'd intended it as a parable, though he'd presented it as fact in two different books. So, people, please drop the 100th monkey thing; it's bullshit--or monkeyshit.

[Alex]

I still hear people citing the "100th monkey effect" frequently. It's frustrating to me because the 100th monkey effect has been thoroughly and decisively debunked, but people still haven't gotten the message, and many don't seem to want to get it......

Thank you very much for citing the specific reason for this viewpoint. I just wonder if that fiction was a misguided attempt to explain something real considering the current quantum and matrix theories.

But OK, I can leave the monkey part out, the rest is more important. The greater point was that a lot of intelligent people around the world have done a lot of work to document and sort through massive amounts of data to reach the most reasonable answers to the subjects listed in this thread and have independently reached exactly the same paradigm shifting conclusions.

There is a huge community who now take these disturbing premises for granted, long ago lost any need to debate them and have moved on to sorting and discussing details and new data as it arrives instead. I believe this is making a valuable contribution to society rather than those who stay stuck defending shallowly researched disinfo because it's too personally threatening to believe some of this stuff is actually true and they stop before looking at all the data.

I still wonder however how much a proliferation factor the virtual reality matrix is that someone like physicist Tom Campbell explains so succinctly about the digital information created and broadcast by thought.

Here’s a recent interview with him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_-sZxg98hQ

[podfish]

I'm going to highlight a few phrases that you're using here, that (to me, at least) refute the tone you seem to be reaching for: of dispassionate, intellectual analysis of new ideas:

... I just wonder if that fiction was a misguided attempt ...
.. a lot of intelligent people ... independently reached exactly the same paradigm shifting conclusions.

a huge community who now take these disturbing premises for granted, long ago lost any need to debate them and have moved on

those who stay stuck defending shallowly researched disinfo because it's too personally threatening to believe some of this stuff is actually true and they stop before looking at all the data.

why impute motives to people, or give subjective and value-laden descriptions, if you're trying to explain the reasonableness of whatever Tom Campbell is explaining succinctly?
I'm as fond of advocacy posts as anyone on this site, obviously, but I hope when I'm making a religious argument rather than an intellectual one, the difference is clear from the writing style.

[Alex]

I'm going to highlight a few phrases that you're using here, that (to me, at least) refute the tone you seem to be reaching for: of dispassionate, intellectual analysis of new ideas:

Alexia wrote:
... I just wonder if that fiction was a misguided attempt ...
.. a lot of intelligent people ... independently reached exactly the same paradigm shifting conclusions.

a huge community who now take these disturbing premises for granted, long ago lost any need to debate them and have moved on

those who stay stuck defending shallowly researched disinfo because it's too personally threatening to believe some of this stuff is actually true and they stop before looking at all the data.

why impute motives to people, or give subjective and value-laden descriptions, if you're trying to explain the reasonableness of whatever Tom Campbell is explaining succinctly?
I'm as fond of advocacy posts as anyone on this site, obviously, but I hope when I'm making a religious argument rather than an intellectual one, the difference is clear from the writing style.

Sorry you found my wording insincere, let alone religious. Having to be so general about such big complex issues was hard, and written conversations are so imprecise and open to misinterpretation anyway. For one thing, it wasn’t meant to be a post just to advocate Tom. It was suggesting Tom’s theory might be a supportive substitute for the monkey issue Dixon debunked, but also that I cared more about the other points and what they were.

More than anything, I'm passionate about the topics in this thread because the ramifications are serious and I know it. I don't get why it was wrong to point out how varied the data awareness is in people with strong opinions, and how frequently it suggests that now is not unlike other times in history where people who don't like having a belief changed refuse to look at all the facts... (and kill the messenger...). I do understand how no fun the topics are. I'm reminded everyday how deep the pandora's boxes were and how big the rude awakenings were.

I don't get why it was wrong to say that I have now experienced years of discussion with many people from around the world who are in agreement after looking honestly at all the data. I was trying to say the answers are there, but you have to look.

I purposely chose the words you highlighted because of how probable the data suggests that many of the topics will turn into scenarios like the following. For example, what if the existence and ugly ramifications of chemtrails gets completely exposed as true?:

.....wouldn't it be a paradigm shifting event changing the whole world's awareness to knowing what very dangerous technologies had been developed behind their backs and what organizations they had previously trusted had been brazenly using these technologies in very broad, long term plans against their well being?

.....wouldn't it have been a disturbing or threatening concept to their comfort zone that most people had refused to look at or dismissed as crazy for a long time?

.....wouldn't there have been a point where many figured it out long before others and lost any need to debate?

.....wouldn't it be clear that many had been in denial for a long time using shallowly researched disinfo to defend why it couldn't possibly be true..... frequently adding disdain and criticism for any messengers?

Anyway, for me it's never been about looking for one-sided data to support what I want to believe. It's been about hating to be lied to, manipulated or a guinea pig and wanting to make the most effort I can to protect myself and
my family, and not helping any negative agenda either by being one of the closed minded, gullible sheep.

My view of the world has changed dramatically since opening all these pandora's boxes and I can't unknow what I've learned. Facts start adding up and don't change, but I'm also constantly reminded that opening one curtain just leads to another.

[podfish]

Sorry you found my wording insincere, let alone religious. ....
I don't get why it was wrong to say that I have now experienced years of discussion with many people from around the world who are in agreement after looking honestly at all the data.
...
I purposely chose the words you highlighted because of how probable the data suggests that many of the topics will turn into scenarios like the following. For example, what if the existence and ugly ramifications of chemtrails gets completely exposed as true?:

I'm getting perilously close to flogging a dead horse - repeating the same message in different contexts too much. But you exactly miss what I said.
My comment (not complaint) had nothing to do with sincerity, and was not at all a judgement on whether you were wrong or not. It was that you were muddying the post by using a religious, true-believer's tone along with claims of scientific honesty and references to fact- and data-based analysis.
The mixture is common in lots of posts, this included, and I suggest that it's self-defeating. To rope Dixon into this, he's often pointed out the fallacies in arguments that use "what if?" as part of their reasoning. What if pigs had wings? They'd be pigeons. There are a lot of similarities between pigs and other animals with wings, so it's not so impossible. That's in your presentation. Well, not the pig part. And the ad-hominem and value-laden words used are equally distracting, creating the tone of advocacy.
I write about this a lot (meta-argument, to be buzzy), and while I don't insist everyone starts taking these concepts to heart, I wanted to respond since the point of my post obviously didn't come through.

[Dixon]

...To rope Dixon into this, he's often pointed out the fallacies in arguments that use "what if?" as part of their reasoning...

Well, since I've been roped into this by my esteemed colleague podfish, I guess I should comment. The type of "what if?" argument mentioned by him (and initially referenced by me) is indeed a bad one, but the mere presence of "what if" or similar words does not necessarily signal bad logic. Hypothetical situations certainly have their place in good reasoning.

Similarly, regarding Alexia's phrases which podfish boldfaced in his post #72 on this thread, I can't agree that the mere presence of these phrases necessarily signals bad logic (whether or not that's podfish's position). Just about any of them could be found in the context of good reasoning. Even a speculation about the other discussant's internal process such as "too personally threatening" could have its place in good reasoning, as long as it's held with appropriate tentativeness and not used to fallaciously invalidate their argument. Of the phrases podfish boldfaced, the one I'm inclined to agree with him about is "lost any need to debate". If you ever get to a point where you think you've nailed it all down and couldn't possibly be mistaken, especially regarding a complex set of claims like the welter of conspiracies under discussion, you're stepping into the realm of closed-mindedness--not a good thing. (Assuming that here "debate" means open-minded discussion, not the useless closed-minded contest often denoted by the term).

My general point here is that, while there are a few phrases that may always be evidence of bad reasoning, in most cases that's too simplistic. We have to consider how the phrase is used in context. Dismissing an argument based on the presence of a particular phrase often smacks of someone's looking for an excuse to invalidate the other's argument without doing all the research that would really justify such dismissal.

This whole conspiracy thing is so complicated, with so many related but separate claims, so hotly argued with reams of data on 2 or more sides, that I can't reasonably have a general conclusion about it, as I haven't done much of the research. I have explicated my current bias to some degree, and have addressed specific issues a little, but I mostly have to sit with uncomfortable uncertainty for the time being. I may never take the time to research this stuff enough to have any degree of appropriate certainty. One of the main tenets of good thinking, and one of the hardest to practice, is to be able to say, "Gee, I don't know."

[Alex]

My general point here is that, while there are a few phrases that may always be evidence of bad reasoning, in most cases that's too simplistic. We have to consider how the phrase is used in context. Dismissing an argument based on the presence of a particular phrase often smacks of someone's looking for an excuse to invalidate the other's argument without doing all the research that would really justify such dismissal......

Thanks for saying it better than me. I'm a little exhausted from trying to restate the context of nitpicked phrases and being told what I meant. But again, conversations on keyboards are really, really constricting.

...... Of the phrases podfish boldfaced, the one I'm inclined to agree with him about is "lost any need to debate". If you ever get to a point where you think you've nailed it all down and couldn't possibly be mistaken,........

But this is one of them. The CONTEXT is that I and many discussion tables long ago lost the need to debate that there is foundational substance to these topics, not that we figured out all the details. That's what I meant with this sentence for CONTEXT a couple posts back...."long ago lost all doubt about the ugly truth of many of threatening subjects listed here, have moved on and are dealing with it quite actively, clearheadedly and holding each other accountable for the data points being put on the table." That says we're not done, it's ongoing.

To me, the people who really 'lost the need to debate' in the way that is bothering both of you are those dismissing the concepts as loony or conspiracy then slam the door.

. One of the main tenets of good thinking, and one of the hardest to practice, is to be able to say, "Gee, I don't know."

I don't know. I look at as much data as I can find and make my best assessment based on what explanations accumulate the more substantial evidence - both for what is true and what is untrue. I find that once you're on the right track, the additional data that comes in starts to organize and the most likely truth picture starts to get more and more solid for either category.

[Dixon]

Thanks for saying it better than me.

You're welcome. And thanks for the compliment.

...conversations on keyboards are really, really constricting.

Agreed.

The CONTEXT is that I and many discussion tables long ago lost the need to debate that there is foundational substance to these topics, not that we figured out all the details.

I understand that, but I'm still a bit skeptical about whether, even just regarding the foundational beliefs, your level of certainty is justified. For instance, I wonder whether TIs in general have sought out and considered skeptical assessments of their data to balance the voluminous amount of "believer" material. One reason I wonder about this is that I don't recall having seen any acknowledgement from you "believers" that some percentage of the data cited by "TIs" is in fact psychotic delusion or hallucination. Subjective experiences such as hallucinated voices, "thought insertion", "thought broadcasting", "mind reading", and being controlled by someone else have been reported for hundreds of years--long before there could conceivably have been any technology capable of doing these things. And of course, the interpretation that we're being harassed/persecuted is paranoia--except when it isn't. So, even if we assume that all the main claims of the TI community (electronic torture, harassment, vandalism, thought control, mind reading, insertion of voices into people's heads) are true, it's still virtually certain that a substantial percentage of the "data" is psychotic material. I'd have more faith in the TI community if I saw some evidence that they were acknowledging that and making some effort to separate the real wheat from the psychotic chaff. Can you acknowledge, Alexia (and arthunter), that psychotic paranoia, delusions and hallucinations have existed for centuries, having nothing to do with any real conspiracies, and that the TI community would predictably attract lots of folks who are confusing psychotic experience with conspiracy?

[arthunter]

Thank you Alexia for stating the obvious ...

Some of these theories have indeed been researched to death, and based on that research, huge communities have come together to continue that research, having verified that there's enough fact to the issue to justify that action ... if those who have not done the same amount of research come along and judge this information as "delusional" or "conspiracy theories" then one can only ask that they do the same amount of research as judging a theory without doing this research is just wrong ...

https://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-vs-govt-dupes/

[Larry Robinson]

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who cease to cherish opinions."

- Seng Tsang (Third Zen Patriarch)

[Dixon]

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who cease to cherish opinions."

That, of course, is an opinion.

[arthunter]

Dixon,

It would be nice if someone actually looked at the links that I've posted before commenting on targeted individuals. I purposely posted an interview in which the doctor and author compared real mental illness with targeted individual harassment ... I even posted the exact moment in the video where this happens so that you don't have to watch the whole interview. I think that this proves that I accept alternative reasons for someone hearing voices, but there are differences and I'd be willing to discuss the differences but first you have to listen to the interview.

The mind reading and thought insertion that you talk about are things that I too have trouble believing, and I have already stated that there are a lot of disinformation agents out there spreading unbelievable information to discredit TIs, .... but I have posted lots of information to show that if it isn't technologically possible now, then they are working on it .... I would think that this kind of factual information would produce a response ... hello? ... whether or not you think that the TI community is subjected to non-consensual experimentation, are you not the least concerned about the progression of mind control technology which is clearly evident by the factual information which I've have posted?

Also, I find it amazing that you are not commenting on any of the other links such as mainstream news reporting, police department comments, government whistle-blowers statements, petitions, lawsuits, and even a conviction ... though I don't know you, you seem like an intelligent rational man and so I question the selective focus which you have shown through out this discussion ...

I think Alexia is correct ... those who skim the surface of complex subjects and then discredit them, do a great dis-service to those who have researched deeply ... and in some ways, they might even do a great dis-service to humanity ... because if any one of these theories is true, and please read the link on my last posting on this thread to see how many have indeed been true, then our planet is in deep trouble and facing natural disaster as well as certain tyranny ...

You're welcome. And thanks for the compliment.
s,nation. Subjective experiences such as hallucinated voices, "thought insertion", "thought broadcasting", "mind reading", and being controlled by someone else have been reported for hundreds of years--long before there could conceivably have been any technology capable of doing these things. And of course, the interpretation that we're being harassed/persecuted is paranoia--except when it isn't. So, even if we assume that all the main claims of the TI community (electronic torture, harassment, vandalism, thought control, mind reading, insertion of voices into people's heads) are true, it's still virtually certain that a substantial percentage of the "data" is psychotic material. I'd have more faith in the TI community if I saw some evidence that they were acknowledging that and making some effort to separate the real wheat from the psychotic chaff. Can you acknowledge, Alexia (and arthunter), that psychotic paranoia, delusions and hallucinations have existed for centuries, having nothing to do with any real conspiracies, and that the TI community would predictably attract lots of folks who are confusing psychotic experience with conspiracy?

[Glia]

Isn't this thread supposed to be a QUIZ, aka a poll? There's a poll feature available on Waccobb, right? How about creating a poll with a closing date and then tallying the result?

On a related note, the misplaced discussion on this quiz thread reminds me a lot of author-speaker Michael Shermer and one of his books, Why People Believe Weird Things.

Shermer also has an informative TED talk on this subject:
https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sh...ge_things.html

[Alex]

... So, even if we assume that all the main claims of the TI community (electronic torture, harassment, vandalism, thought control, mind reading, insertion of voices into people's heads) are true, it's still virtually certain that a substantial percentage of the "data" is psychotic material. I'd have more faith in the TI community if I saw some evidence that they were acknowledging that and making some effort to separate the real wheat from the psychotic chaff.....

Totally agreed up till there, except I would change the word 'substantial' (do you really 'know'? I don't.) to 'unknown'.

Can you acknowledge, Alexia (and arthunter), that psychotic paranoia, delusions and hallucinations have existed for centuries, having nothing to do with any real conspiracies, and that the TI community would predictably attract lots of folks who are confusing psychotic experience with conspiracy?

Yes, of course you are correct with the section I've highlighted in blue, and probably correct about the 1st sentence within your list of items that constitute 'conspiracy'. But to me, that's where it gets too big to summarize as all or nothing, and I'm pretty sure my conspiracy (long term plans, technologies and organized efforts to influence and control other human beings) list would be much longer and esoteric-concept laden than yours - too much to define in email. Conspiracy, deception and contagious negative mass influences did not begin with modern advanced technology.

But what era's technology was more advanced anyway? Us, or the era's that produced things we still can't duplicate?

[arthunter]

Dixon,

I'm sorry, but your assumption that a large percentage of targeted individuals are mentally ill is just wrong ... First of all, information about this protocol is not mainstream, so it is not going to attract your general mentally ill person who is sitting around looking for a new delusion ... people generally find out about this protocol by searching for specific crimes ... when they stumble across this information a light bulb goes off because of "the protocol" and it's unmistakable organized structure ... when they join one of the support groups they are questioned ... if they describe the protocol correctly then they are seen as a true targeted individual ...

Also, as Dr. Hall describes in his interview, mentally ill people usually rant on about God, etc., and they usually respond to medication, ... targeted individuals have records of very precise events in their lives and many of them have proof of these events .... they are usually middle-aged professional people who are very articulate and intelligent ... and they can answer questions about their harassment in great detail which corresponds to information already gathered ...

Lastly, this protocol, unlike any true delusion in history, has been verified by two government whistle-blowers, an ex-governor, several mainstream news stations, several policemen, and many reputable authors ..

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1...qid=1390438371

[arthunter]

Please respond to my gang stalking post in the gang stalking thread ...there are other theories that deserve attention on this thread, and also, I agree, the idea of a poll is a good one ...

two photos that belong in this thread when considering what we believe and how that is determined ....

[Dixon]

Alexia, arthunter et al.--

Now that both Glia and Barry (this thread's originator) have complained about our hijacking this thread for a lengthy tangent, I'm feeling guilty about having done so. While I'm really tempted to respond to your recent posts here, I'm gonna resist the temptation. It's becoming clear to me that the dialogue could go on for a thousand posts. I will try to find some time to look at some more of your evidence.

[Shandi]

Dixon, your wisdom shows up once again...and as always it's much appreciated.

Alexia, arthunter et al.--

Now that both Glia and Barry (this thread's originator) have complained about our hijacking this thread for a lengthy tangent, I'm feeling guilty about having done so. While I'm really tempted to respond to your recent posts here, I'm gonna resist the temptation. It's becoming clear to me that the dialogue could go on for a thousand posts. I will try to find some time to look at some more of your evidence.

[Alex]

Isn't this thread supposed to be a QUIZ, aka a poll? There's a poll feature available on Waccobb, right? How about creating a poll with a closing date and then tallying the result?....

The few that took it felt compelled to add some clarification. Maybe there would be more participation if the choices were described with a little more explanation like these:


A. After much research and exposure to many sides of this issue, I feel there is overwhelming evidence indicating that the truth of this issue is vastly different than what mainstream news has presented to the public, suspect a deliberate and organized effort to suppress many disturbing facts, and feel it’s very much worth forcing accountability where applicable for these facts and questions.

B. I have only picked up bits and pieces of varying media stories, but my gut feeling is that it is something worth investigating thoroughly and honestly.

C. I’m detached from any real interest in the subject one way or another.

D. I’m not really concerned, but can go along with the explanations and characerizations offered by the government, TV stations, newspapers and/or big corporations. I have to rely on them to know more about these things than me and I don’t see why they would deliberately lie to me, deceive, manipulate or want to harm me.

E. I hardly know anything about it but am absolutely sure only loonies and nutjobs would think this subject has any substance and I’m not one of them.

F. What?

[Glia]

Those clarified response choices sound good to me. Now, can these choices be converted into a poll within Waccobb, or is it necessary to use an outside tool such as Survey Monkey?

The few that took it felt compelled to add some clarification. Maybe there would be more participation if the choices were described with a little more explanation like these:

[arthunter]

Great job, Alexia ...

I only have one suggestion ... I'm not in favor of insulting anyone on this forum so I would change "E" to a simple "I don't believe it" ...

The few that took it felt compelled to add some clarification. ...