From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2013 09:45:52 -0500 Archived: Thu, 10 Oct 2013 05:52:57 -0400 Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing >From: Vincent Boudreau <vincentboudreau.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:27:33 -0400 >Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing >>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 08:30:35 -0500 >>Subject: Re: The Conspiracy Of Conspiracy Theorizing >>Almost in spite of myself, I am impressed. Someone who >>acknowledges that he finds wisdom in the pronouncements of >>barstool ranters is a rarely honest and self-aware conspiracy >>theorist indeed. >>I suppose I should spend less time educating myself in political >>history -- I mean, what do all those over-educated, pointy- >>headed professors know anyway? -- and more time getting the true >>story in saloons. >>Then again, has it occurred to you that barstool ranters may >>have been placed there by the conspirators to spread >>disinformation intended to conceal what they're _really_ up to? >>You never know. >So far, in this thread, _you_ are the one, the only one, >providing the ranters. >Since the beginning you have consistently tried to drag down the >exchange into personal attacks. >Ultimately, you are now calling all people opposing your biased >opinion "barstool ranters". >The "barstool ranters" has become a mantra in your last posts, >as the term "comspiracy theories" has become one in the last >years. >Sorry to bring you the news, but repeating things does not make >them more true. >Since the beginning of this thread, you have kept away from >content, mumbling your way through vague theories and muddy >ideas that never address the facts the other posters have >brought forth. >The more this goes on, the more you look like you're playing >this game the kids play, where they stick fingers in both their >ears and start chanting "lalalalala..." >"Whatever," might you say "I wouldn't care less". >Considering your constant disrecpect towards people not sharing >your ideas, that may be the problem. >And please don't come up with the ultimate argument: "I am a >published author, a famous lecturer! I am recognized authority >in my field! What have _you_ done personally in your life?" >Well, Jerry, I could only answer this: whatever, when you go >down this road, it seems that you're loosing it. I think you mean "losing it." And if you mean interest in this thread, you are correct. It's odd how, when I began this, I thought I was defending the sorts of people, one of them me, who are sympathetically interested in the UFO phenomenon. I thought "conspiracy theorist" as a characterization of the ufologist mindset to be false and unfair. Not for some, I learn. I also learn that conspiracy theorists have no sense of humor, but I guess I already had figured that out. To repeat: Your quarrel is not with me but with history and historians. There's a reason, if you have the intellectual curiosity to find out why it is, that conspiracy theories are far more likely to be advocated from bar stools than at conferences of historians. And if you choose to regard that as a personal attack (informed Listfolk, on the other hand, will recognize it as a simple statement of fact), it's a good bet that you don't know a whole lot about history and historians beyond their representation in conspiracy literature. Which is your right, of course. It's also my right to bow out of this before I'm so deep into the rabbit hole that there's no escape. Or I lapse into a coma from sheer boredom. Whichever comes first. Jerry Clark Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp