Avoiding all Conspiracy Websites: My experiment

[parky76]

So starting Wednesday, I've avoided looking at any and all conspiracy theory websites. This includes Prisonplanet, Loose Change, and We Are Change.

Its only been two days, but how do I feel?

Well, I gotta say, its very nice to NOT be exposed to irrational and grotesque paranoia.

Sure, I still read Fox News, but at least their stupidity still has a decent level of rational thinking and sane mindsets.

How long will I continue this? Who knows. But I figure all the "important" and "interesting" conspiracy theories will make it to JREF somehow, and I'll be able to read about them here.

And once they get here, they don't have the same annoying and even shocking effect.

Will or should others mimic my experiment? It all depends on, if like me, you feel that your exposure to this constant stimuli of fear, paranoia, and insanity is actually slightly unhealthy for the mind and body.

[theprestige]

And once they get here, they don't have the same annoying and even shocking effect.

"Better than PrisonPlanet" isn't really an impressive bar to set, though.

[grandthefttoaster]

I can't stand reading the comments that people leave on sites like Infowars and also youtube videos, it is too depressing. Actually, the worst I have seen are the comments on Screw Loose Change. A good blog, but stay away from the comments.

[zaphod2016]

Sure, I still read Fox News

Why?

Of all the news sources on the web, why read one populated with known "stupidity"?

Unless you are getting paid, or doing specific research, I'd stay the heck away from woo sites.

[zaphod2016]

Just to better illustrate my point, I just accessed foxnews.com. I found the following 3 stories at the top of the page:

ACORN Axes Worker in Video (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551780,00.html)

Original video taken from a blogger; the rest of the story details provided by the AP.

More Fights Ahead in Congress Over Health Care (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/18/fights-ahead-congress-health-care/)

This one comes directly from the AP.

Parents Sue Walmart After Kids' Bath Photos Fiasco (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551760,00.html)

This one also comes directly from the AP.

Fox has done no research here, they have simply aggregated media from superior sources, and branded it.

You can read the EXACT SAME NEWS (http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_scoring=r&btnG=Search&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m&as_minm=8&as_mind=19&as_maxm=9&as_maxd=18&as_nsrc=associated+press&as_nloc=&geo=&as_author=&as_occt=any) directly from the AP (via Google News) without any ads*, or unnecessary editorializing.

Note: CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion.

If you want information, use tools like Google News, and check for original research, in-depth investigations and direct interviews. There is a WEALTH of news media at your disposal.

You are at an all-you-can-eat buffet, filling up on crackers, with the entree table two feet behind you.

* EDIT: Google has added a single ad at the bottom of some articles; compare with the endless bright, flashing, blinking ads on most major media sites.

[Eddie Dane]

Just to better illustrate my point, I just accessed foxnews.com. I found the following 3 stories at the top of the page:

ACORN Axes Worker in Video (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551780,00.html)

Original video taken from a blogger; the rest of the story details provided by the AP.

More Fights Ahead in Congress Over Health Care (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/09/18/fights-ahead-congress-health-care/)

This one comes directly from the AP.

Parents Sue Walmart After Kids' Bath Photos Fiasco (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,551760,00.html)

This one also comes directly from the AP.

Fox has done no research here, they have simply aggregated media from superior sources, and branded it.

You can read the EXACT SAME NEWS (http://news.google.com/news/search?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&as_q=&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_scoring=r&btnG=Search&as_drrb=q&as_qdr=m&as_minm=8&as_mind=19&as_maxm=9&as_maxd=18&as_nsrc=associated+press&as_nloc=&geo=&as_author=&as_occt=any) directly from the AP (via Google News) without any ads*, or unnecessary editorializing.

Note: CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion.

If you want information, use tools like Google News, and check for original research, in-depth investigations and direct interviews. There is a WEALTH of news media at your disposal.

You are at an all-you-can-eat buffet, filling up on crackers, with the entree table two feet behind you.

* EDIT: Google has added a single ad at the bottom of some articles; compare with the endless bright, flashing, blinking ads on most major media sites.

I could break this post into three parts and nomibate each one seperately.

The only websites where I read re-hashed AP-news, are satyrical. I don't need the opinion of some blow-dried dolt. If I want opinions, I read the Economist (and yes, they too have a bias, and are often wrong).

[Par]

[S]hould others mimic my experiment?


Should others make trivial changes to their personal habits? If they want to. Should they start banal threads about it? I would say not.

[zaphod2016]

I could break this post into three parts and nomibate each one seperately.

The only websites where I read re-hashed AP-news, are satyrical. I don't need the opinion of some blow-dried dolt. If I want opinions, I read the Economist (and yes, they too have a bias, and are often wrong).


Thank you for your kind words.

I also love The Economist (http://www.economist.com/), especially their original interviews.

Where did Parky go?

[Tippit]

So starting Wednesday, I've avoided looking at any and all conspiracy theory websites. This includes Prisonplanet, Loose Change, and We Are Change.

Its only been two days, but how do I feel?

Well, I gotta say, its very nice to NOT be exposed to irrational and grotesque paranoia.

Sure, I still read Fox News, but at least their stupidity still has a decent level of rational thinking and sane mindsets.

How long will I continue this? Who knows. But I figure all the "important" and "interesting" conspiracy theories will make it to JREF somehow, and I'll be able to read about them here.

And once they get here, they don't have the same annoying and even shocking effect.

Will or should others mimic my experiment? It all depends on, if like me, you feel that your exposure to this constant stimuli of fear, paranoia, and insanity is actually slightly unhealthy for the mind and body.

That's exactly how I feel about the mainstream news, versus alternative media. Sometimes I go without listening to Alex Jones, or reading alternative media, simply because it's depressing, and it takes a toll on me. But after a few weeks of watching CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I will listen to Jones and it's back to reality, things that matter. Like my liberty, and the future of this country.

I'm sure that sounds comical to most of you, but no less comical than watching the talking heads on CNN talk about Paris Hilton is to me.

[drkitten]

That's exactly how I feel about the mainstream news, versus alternative media. Sometimes I go without listening to Alex Jones, or reading alternative media, simply because it's depressing, and it takes a toll on me. But after a few weeks of watching CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I will listen to Jones and it's back to reality, things that matter. Like my liberty, and the future of this country.

I'm sure that sounds comical to most of you,

Don't flatter yourself. Pathetic is not funny, almost by definition.

[zaphod2016]

I will listen to Jones and it's back to reality, things that matter. Like my liberty, and the future of this country.

Tippit, my fellow foe of the Fed, I hope this post finds you well.

I feel the need to do what I did (re: Fox News above) for our friend Jones.

Today on infowars.com we have:

State Says Forced Injections, Quarantines For “Rapidly Spreading Germ,” But Not Swine Flu (http://www.infowars.com/state-says-forced-injections-quarantines-for-rapidly-spreading-germ-but-not-swine-flu/)

This article sources:

- prisonplanet.com (another Jones site) which is akin to someone interviewing themselves

- this boston.com (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/09/17/in_public_health_bill_a_contagion_of_fear/?page=full) article; author Stephen Smith has done some first hand research regarding the anti-vaccination movement

The infowars.com article continues:

The issue of mandatory vaccinations in Massachusetts is especially prescient due to the fact that authorities in Boston have already trialed vaccination tracking technology with the purpose of creating a “vaccination map” charting which people have taken the vaccine and which have not, or “creating a citywide registry of everyone who has had a flu vaccination,” as a Boston Globe article describes (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/21/boston_launches_flu_shot_tracking/), via the use of RFID bracelets.

The article sourced is here:

Boston launches flu shot tracking (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/11/21/boston_launches_flu_shot_tracking/)

The trial starts this afternoon, when several hundred people are expected to queue up for immunizations at the headquarters of the Boston Public Health Commission. Each of them will get a bracelet printed with a unique identifier code. Information about the vaccine's recipients, and the shot, will be entered into handheld devices similar to those used by delivery truck drivers.

This inforwars article goes on to source:

Doctors told to watch for Guillain-Barre syndrome during Swine flu vaccination programme (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/swine-flu/6038460/Doctors-told-to-watch-for-Guillain-Barre-syndrome-during-Swine-flu-vaccination-programme.html) which comes from the Telegraph UK

The infowars article ends (just like Fox News, et all) by quoting the news wire (http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58F3A720090916). In this case, Reuters, not AP.

In summary:

- the facts of this case came from the Boston Globe, the Telegraph UK, and the Reuters news wire

- The author has added nothing but editorial and opinion

- Paul Joseph Watson, author of the infowars.com article has done no original research

- The dates of the articles sourced are interesting; one of the telegraph UK articles cited is already a month old; one of the Boston Globe articles (re: RFID) is almost a year old. Not only is this unoriginal, its old news!

- It should be noted that the original Boston Globe article (quoted above) makes no actual mention of "RFID". However, based on the author's description of the technology used by this trial, it is quite possible that these bracelets do in fact rely on RFID. However, this has not been clearly stated in any of the original sources to this story.

- Note that the ads on infowars.com are just as irritating as those on Fox News, et all.

I'm not going to touch the content of Watson's editorializing, because I did not touch the content of Fox's editorializing either (FYI 90% of these anti-vaccination claims have already been thoroughly debunked elsewhere here on JREF). For the purpose of this conversation, the point I am making is that BOTH news sources fail to include original research, and survive by parroting other (better) news sources. The only thing infowars.com has contributed to this story is opinion, branding and advertisements.

Due to the length of this post, I'll stop with this one article. If that's an inadequate sample space, I have no doubt I could do this forever.

I will listen to Jones and it's back to reality, things that matter. Like my liberty, and the future of this country.

I'm sure that sounds comical to most of you, but no less comical than watching the talking heads on CNN talk about Paris Hilton is to me.

I submit to you that BOTH Alex Jones AND CNN are lousy news sources, and can be skipped in favor of primary sources and original investigations. I agree Paris Hilton shouldn't be considered news, but neither should Mr. Watson's opinion of a few articles he just read. I can read the original articles just fine myself, and I have no doubt you could too.

[parky76]

I will listen to Jones and it's back to reality, things that matter. Like my liberty, and the future of this country.

I'm sure that sounds comical to most of you,

FEMA camps, chemtrails, 9-11 conspiracy theories, raving anti-Zionist topics, Obama is from Kenya, Fake Moon-landing, kill the FED, the Illuminati banksters, the USA is a police state, etc etc.

yeah, these topics are reaaaaallllly important.

good luck buddy.

oh, and its day 3, and I still feel great. All these insane, paranoid, delusional, chicken-little news topics really were getting me down.

yes, if you watch CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Fox News, the world can still be kind of a sad place. But at least most of what they report is REAL and is RATIONAL.

that's the difference folks. I'll take depressing and boring reality over depressing and scary fantasy ANY DAY.

[Tippit]

In summary:

- the facts of this case came from the Boston Globe, the Telegraph UK, and the Reuters news wire



I think it's a bit naive to assume that the "objective" sources of the news don't have their own axes to grind. Reuters isn't necessarily free from most forms of bias, and it has the potential for the most important bias of all, selection (or even more important, non-selection).



- The author has added nothing but editorial and opinion

- Paul Joseph Watson, author of the infowars.com article has done no original research



I'm not under any illusions that infowars isn't editorializing. It is merely a news aggregator with commentary, value added for those who share the same basic worldview. There is nothing wrong with this at all.



- The dates of the articles sourced are interesting; one of the telegraph UK articles cited is already a month old; one of the Boston Globe articles (re: RFID) is almost a year old. Not only is this unoriginal, its old news!



That's a feature, not a bug. I want a news service with a memory, that can tie in related articles months, even years ago. Since the articles were sourced, it's easy enough for the reader to ascertain how relevant they are.



- It should be noted that the original Boston Globe article (quoted above) makes no actual mention of "RFID". However, based on the author's description of the technology used by this trial, it is quite possible that these bracelets do in fact rely on RFID. However, this has not been clearly stated in any of the original sources to this story.



I haven't read your example articles, but I don't see any reason to assume there is RFID in the bracelets. Not only wouldn't there be much a point to this, but it's not so worrisome given that one can simply remove the bracelet. RFID integrated in other technology is more problematic.



- Note that the ads on infowars.com are just as irritating as those on Fox News, et all.



This is probably the least convincing argument against infowars that I've seen. How is it that CNN, Fox, and MSNBC obtain billions in revenue and that's acceptable, but alternative media has to be not-for-profit? The way I see it, CNN and Fox get paid fortunes to lie, and Jones gets paid a relative pittance to tell the truth. So what.



I'm not going to touch the content of Watson's editorializing, because I did not touch the content of Fox's editorializing either (FYI 90% of these anti-vaccination claims have already been thoroughly debunked elsewhere here on JREF). For the purpose of this conversation, the point I am making is that BOTH news sources fail to include original research, and survive by parroting other (better) news sources. The only thing infowars.com has contributed to this story is opinion, branding and advertisements.



I disagree. First of all, the vaccination issue is simple, as I see it. The science of vaccination is well-accepted, the issue is with contaminants in the preservatives. There are lots of credible sources that document this, and while undoubtedly most vaccines are safe, the industry has lost credibility. I don't trust vaccines. As long as I'm not coerced into taking them, you're welcome to be vaccinated as much and as often as you like.



Due to the length of this post, I'll stop with this one article. If that's an inadequate sample space, I have no doubt I could do this forever.

I submit to you that BOTH Alex Jones AND CNN are lousy news sources, and can be skipped in favor of primary sources and original investigations. I agree Paris Hilton shouldn't be considered news, but neither should Mr. Watson's opinion of a few articles he just read. I can read the original articles just fine myself, and I have no doubt you could too.

Your argument is that there is no value added in both news aggregation, and news opinion, and I can't say much about that other than I disagree. The consumption of this news over time certainly does make for some interesting diversity of worldview, for sure.

[Hypatia]

How long will I continue this? Who knows. But I figure all the "important" and "interesting" conspiracy theories will make it to JREF somehow, and I'll be able to read about them here.

And once they get here, they don't have the same annoying and even shocking effect.

Will or should others mimic my experiment? It all depends on, if like me, you feel that your exposure to this constant stimuli of fear, paranoia, and insanity is actually slightly unhealthy for the mind and body.

Yup, I've recently come to that conclusion, too. I used to incessantly study the stuff, as a result of my husband falling down the rabbit hole last year. Fortunately, he's pulled himself back out of the hole, but old habits die hard: I felt I had to keep up with what the nutjobs were saying so that I would be debunking-ready if hubby slipped back down the hole or freaked out over some new, ridiculous claim.

But with hubby coming back to reality, I just don't want to expose myself to CT crap anymore. I've had a bellyful of it over the past year. So like you, Parky, I'm keeping abreast from JREF of what's happening in the CT world.

Further, I've realized that I can't let CT paranoia suck the joy out of my life, regardless of what hubby believes. Hubby is thinking more clearly now, yes, but it isn't my job to keep a rope around his mind. If he does fall back down the rabbit hole, I'll research and debunk as necessary. But I'm not his babysitter. He makes his own choices, and I can control only myself. What a load off my shoulders.

As a result of staying away from the CT crap? I feel better than I have in over a year -- twisty stomach knots all gone, anxiety level much lower, and I can concentrate more fully on doing the things in everyday life that I love to do.

I would rather study real problems in the world, and devote as little time as possible to the fantasies.

[Stout]

I actually never go to those sites, preferring instead to log on here, hit new posts and see what's on the wacko menu for today.

The downside is with my being on the west coast I'm behind you guys time zone wise and usually by the time i get here "the issue" has been picked over and all I'm left with is reading other peoples analysis. That's OK though, it saves me tons of research time so I can better devote my efforts to my ongoing research on hot college coeds and how they live their lives in their dorm rooms:D

I get most of my news from the CBC and our local newspaper's website, so i was unaware that FOX news had a website. I just visited it, but since I don't live in the US and don't have ready access to the FOX news channel ( I have to order and pay for it separately..and I'm to cheap to do so ) I won't be saving it to favourites.

To be fair though, the stories linked to above do credit Associated Press which just makes looking for *other versions* of the same story a little more challenging.

[Tippit]

But with hubby coming back to reality, I just don't want to expose myself to CT crap anymore. I've had a bellyful of it over the past year. So like you, Parky, I'm keeping abreast from JREF of what's happening in the CT world.

Further, I've realized that I can't let CT paranoia suck the joy out of my life, regardless of what hubby believes. Hubby is thinking more clearly now, yes, but it isn't my job to keep a rope around his mind. If he does fall back down the rabbit hole, I'll research and debunk as necessary. But I'm not his babysitter. He makes his own choices, and I can control only myself. What a load off my shoulders.



How could the "CT paranoia" suck the joy out of your life, if you ascribe no credibility to it? If none of it is real, there is absolutely nothing to be worried or sad about, is there? If some of it is real, even a small fraction, and you see fit to deny it because it makes you sad, then you're letting your emotions dominate your rational mind. This is what I refer to as the "aura of disbelievability" that most CTs have. Perpetrators of such CTs have protection to the degree that it costs a lot, in time, money, and emotional baggage, to pursue these things. Most people would rather lie to themselves and focus on the superficial things in life.



As a result of staying away from the CT crap? I feel better than I have in over a year -- twisty stomach knots all gone, anxiety level much lower, and I can concentrate more fully on doing the things in everyday life that I love to do.

I would rather study real problems in the world, and devote as little time as possible to the fantasies.

Good for you. But if none of the CT crap is true, then why were you anxious to begin with?

[Hypatia]

How could the "CT paranoia" suck the joy out of your life, if you ascribe no credibility to it? If none of it is real, there is absolutely nothing to be worried or sad about, is there?

No, re: the CTs there isn't. It does grieve me, though, how more and more people's critical thinking skills are spiraling down the toilet, and how lying, fear-mongering, and spin is supplanting debate of real-world issues and problems.

Good for you. But if none of the CT crap is true, then why were you anxious to begin with?

My anxiety and depression wasn't about the conspiracy theories themselves (fear that they might be true). Rather, it came as a result of living day-to-day with someone who was constantly ranting, angry, and paranoid over things which aren't real. So it stands to reason, now that things are better with my husband, that I don't want to spend my time on sites which are run by and/or frequented by people who are ranting, angry, and paranoid over things which aren't real.

[Steelmage]

I did not read every post, but so far, it seems to me that CT websites and certain news organizations seem to me basic on this information to be their own conspiracy.

[Subliminal]

So starting Wednesday, I've avoided looking at any and all conspiracy theory websites. This includes Prisonplanet, Loose Change, and We Are Change.

Its only been two days, but how do I feel?

Well, I gotta say, its very nice to NOT be exposed to irrational and grotesque paranoia.

Sure, I still read Fox News, but at least their stupidity still has a decent level of rational thinking and sane mindsets.

How long will I continue this? Who knows. But I figure all the "important" and "interesting" conspiracy theories will make it to JREF somehow, and I'll be able to read about them here.

And once they get here, they don't have the same annoying and even shocking effect.

Will or should others mimic my experiment? It all depends on, if like me, you feel that your exposure to this constant stimuli of fear, paranoia, and insanity is actually slightly unhealthy for the mind and body.

So you still check out Fox News? a channel that just spreads 90% lies just to get your interest? oh dear.

[parky76]

well..its 9 days now.

my mind feels clearer. life is happier. much less exposure to stupidity and nuttyness.

this may no longer be an experiment. this may be my new way of life. I'll let other folks expose me to the nuttyness.

:)

[Stout]

well..its 9 days now.

my mind feels clearer. life is happier. much less exposure to stupidity and nuttyness.

this may no longer be an experiment. this may be my new way of life. I'll let other folks expose me to the nuttyness.

:)

Works for me :)

[Skeptic]

CNN, Fox, MSNBC are all terrible, all do the exact same thing: take news wire reports, add a bunch of unnecessary opinion, and then re-brand it as "infotainment" as if this were some sort of useful service. It is akin to paying me to read a newspaper to you, while interrupting frequently with my own opinion.

I am stealing this for my .sig file. Nominated.

[Skeptic]

But after a few weeks of watching CNN, Fox, or MSNBC, I will listen to Jones and it's back to reality, things that matter.

Oooooh, look! Someone used "Alex Jones" and "Reality" in the same sentence! That doesn't happen to often.

[Skeptic]

well..its 9 days now.

my mind feels clearer. life is happier. much less exposure to stupidity and nuttyness.

...and then you visit the JREF's conspiracy forum.

[al_capone_junior]

Well, I gotta say, its very nice to NOT be exposed to irrational and grotesque paranoia.

Sure, I still read Fox News...

:D

That is so friggin' classic...

I'll be laughing all night over that one. Thanks for posting!!

:hit:

[parky76]

I don't find most of Fox News reports to be grotesquely paranoid.

Prison Planet is a WHOOOOOLE other story.

And by the way, I'm going on my third week now with ZERO exposure to conspiracy websites.

And when someone with obsessive-compulsive tendencies like me has actually lost interest in such sites, you know they have failed.

[Especially]

I know the feeling. I'm suffering from withdrawl symptoms from BBC news. It's so slick, so entertaining, so convincing, that I became convinced the BBC were giving us news.

What woke me up was to discover that it's producing the same nonsense here in England.

[Sledge]

Ok, I'll bite: what's the "real" news, Especially?

[Especially]

Ok, I'll bite: what's the "real" news, Especially?

How about this news. England (a nation over 1000 years old) will shortly be in political union with a new Empire. The European Union. But nobody, not a single person, has voted for such a political union in Britain.

Is that news ?

And the political parties in Westminster, promising to give us a vote on this issue, are all refusing to do so.

So much for democracy, right ? In a few months England, as a nation, will cease to exist. It will be carved up in to 9administrative regions of the EU octopus.

How about that news ?

BBC doesn't talk about this. In fact, the BBC (founded as a 'public news service at public expense') doesn't ever refer to this crime.

Integration with another nation is contrary to the Constitution of the United Kingdom. And more than 70 per cent of British people DEMAND A VOTE ON THIS ISSUE. WE DON'T WANT THE EU !

[garethdjb]

So much for democracy, right ? In a few months England, as a nation, will cease to exist. It will be carved up in to 9administrative regions of the EU octopus.



Are you sure you've read the Lisbon treaty properly? In a few months? Are you sure that the Czech Republic will ratify the treaty by then.
As to the BBC, they are interviewing Boris Johnson about a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty as I type this.

[PB2007]

In a few months England, as a nation, will cease to exist. It will be carved up in to 9administrative regions of the EU octopus.

Bwah ha ha ha..... And only a handful of people of the interwebs know about it right?

[Lupie]

So you still check out Fox News? a channel that just spreads 90% lies just to get your interest? oh dear.

I think it's wise to get news from multiple sources, and distill it all down into what I believe to be credible and newsworthy. Often times that means I have to watch news broadcasts that I do not like. Fox News is pretty high on my silly tabloid garbage scale, but it helps to know what they are up to, and what there agenda is on any given day.

I recently went to see Don Henley perform live, and he dedicated his song "Dirty Laundry" to Mr. Rupert Murdoch. It was hilarious, and fitting.

L.

[Especially]

What I've noticed is that conspiracy theorists have all been right. They were right about 9/11. They were right about corporate government. They were right about elites in our political system. They were right about bankers. They were right about the military/industrial complex. And they were right about the mainstream media.

Not a bad record.

[Lothian]

What I've noticed is that conspiracy theorists have all been right. They were right about 9/11. They were right about corporate government. They were right about elites in our political system. They were right about bankers. They were right about the military/industrial complex. And they were right about the mainstream media.

Not a bad record.You forgot Elvis.

[Especially]

You forgot Elvis.


No, I didn't forget Elvis. The world believed the Earth was flat, for centuries. It was mainstream science. And everyone believed it. Till they were shown to be wrong.

The 'Elvis' theory had no facts to support it from the outset. It too is wrong. Many theories are wrong. And much news is wrong too.

In the cases I have cited they were all right.

Shall I list some of the bogus news stories in the mass media of recent times which were false ?

[tuc0]

Shall I list some of the bogus news stories in the mass media of recent times which were false ?

Yes, please! But start a new thread so you don't derail this one.

[Lothian]

In the cases I have cited they were all right.
All bar six.

[parky76]

What I've noticed is that conspiracy theorists have all been right. They were right about 9/11. They were right about corporate government. They were right about elites in our political system. They were right about bankers. They were right about the military/industrial complex. And they were right about the mainstream media.

Not a bad record.

ah, so you're a conspiracy theorist then?

[Sledge]

Wait, EVERY conspiracy theory has been right? That's... that's not even possible. For example, the theory the Apollo astronauts faked the moon landings in low Earth orbit isn't compatible with the theory that man has never been into space at all. I'm confused now.

[Donal]

The world believed the Earth was flat, for centuries. It was mainstream science. And everyone believed it. Till they were shown to be wrong.



Just out of curiosity, when do you think that happened?

[PB2007]

The world believed the Earth was flat, for centuries. It was mainstream science. And everyone believed it. Till they were shown to be wrong.

This is a baseless myth. Whilst some were superstitious of falling off the edge of the world, it was generally accepted the world wasn't flat. Even the Ancient Greeks knew it wasn't flat. If this is the level of your understanding then what else could you have got wrong?

[Sledge]

What can you expect from someone who doesn't watch the BBC? If he'd seen QI, he'd have known better.

[Stout]

This is a baseless myth. Whilst some were superstitious of falling off the edge of the world, it was generally accepted the world wasn't flat. Even the Ancient Greeks knew it wasn't flat. If this is the level of your understanding then what else could you have got wrong?

*cough*

It was my "level of understanding" until about five minutes ago when I went asearchin'

Cheers, thanks for that :)

[parky76]

Whilst

I'm sorry, is this a real word?

:)

[Sledge]

I'm sorry, is this a real word?

:)

Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+whilst+a+word%3F) :D

ETA: Smiley. Aiming for a joke, not an insult.

[parky76]

Let me Google that for you. (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+whilst+a+word%3F) :D

ETA: Smiley. Aiming for a joke, not an insult.

haa haa. if i wrote "whilst" on my college papers, I would have gotten a little red line.

:)

[Klimax]

Are you sure you've read the Lisbon treaty properly? In a few months? Are you sure that the Czech Republic will ratify the treaty by then.


This one of the fewest rights president has which can significantly affect others. He'll have to sign it as he said that if Poland president does it,he'll do it. He is idiot,IMO he is even worse then Bush ever could be...

(Or somebody will collect evidence that we have a traitor(he is conformed former agent of KGB and it is supposed he is under russian influence) as president and we get first such trial in history. Unfortunately at this time it is just CT...)

[leafman91]

Even the Ancient Greeks knew it wasn't flat. If this is the level of your understanding then what else could you have got wrong?

Eh? I'm pretty sure the Ancient Greeks did think it was flat. There was the Earth, surrounded by the River Oakeanos, and near the banks of the river Okeanos was Hyperboria, Atlantis, The Red Isle, etc etc. On the other side of the river was Elysium, and Hades' realm, which was bordered by a lake and 3 rivers, of which the River Styx is one. Charon was first going across the lake in a skiff, never mind the river Styx. This is Archaic Hades, mind.

[Sledge]

Depends how you're defining "ancient" I guess: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#Classical_world:_Greece_and_Rome

[Stout]

So, how's it going ? Still managing to stay away or you heading over for "just a quick peek" ?

[parky76]

So, how's it going ? Still managing to stay away or you heading over for "just a quick peek" ?

i peeked a little at Loose Change yesterday, but the place is literally dead. i don't think it will exist in a year's time.

also looked at Prisonplanet. same old insanity.

withdrawal is hard.

:)