Daily conspiracy

[The Architect Of Fate]

Where did I miss the 'substance' posted by our nut from the north?

You didn't because there was none. Just alot of raving.

[The Architect Of Fate]

This is blatant opinion shopping.  Refusing to accept anything until you find an account which is agreeable to you.  It's pathetic.  The person who regularly sources info from Youtube is complaining about sources.  It's laughable.

Yup it is hilarious 

[LinuxGal]

Daylight Savings Time started in 1973. GovCo blamed it on the Arab oil embargo in the wake of US support for Israel in the Yom Kippur War. The embargo ended, but GovCo found that jerking us around twice a year was such a power trip...

[Silver]

There is a difference between mistrusting the government and concocting ridiculous tin-foil hat theories.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Thanks Tomato and Linux you have just about covered over the stench of IA crap.

[Irreligious Atheist]

I addressed this to Helios. I said I take that back and I'm fine with someone I haven't heard of, but please make it someone other than a meme poster who is making the case that there is no reason to mistrust government motives.

And I like how you just nitpicked at the smallest most irrelevant point in my post and ignored all of the substance where I showed how wrong the author was. How about you debunk the Intercept article for me, Boru? I consider you ten times as intelligent as the source that Helios linked me, so you will be fine to do the job. Which of the points from Helios article do you agree with personally? Do you blanket agree with the entire article?

No, I’m not going to debunk that article for you. Apart from the obvious reasons why, I’m just not that interested.

I gleefully accept the charge of nitpicking.

Boru

Thank you for admitting that you were nitpicking. I see you were just trying to have a little fun being cheeky like you are with Brian37. You could have at least told me which parts of Helios blog meme poster you agreed with though, at least, if you were going to cause a fuss in the first place about me not responding to Helios blog poster quickly enough.

[Irreligious Atheist]

This is blatant opinion shopping.  Refusing to accept anything until you find an account which is agreeable to you.  It's pathetic.  The person who regularly sources info from Youtube is complaining about sources.  It's laughable.

The meme blog poster Helios linked to that was posting Randy Orton WWE wrestling memes had to put multiple updates in his blog correcting his own misinformation that he posted. It basically went like this, if you read the article; There is no portal for government to report posts, what a ridiculous conspiracy theory... and then the author puts in a correction and says, well, actually I was wrong about that and there is a government portal to report things, but that's actually an awesome idea and I support that.

Did you actually read the blog post Helios linked me? I doubt it. And you know which source I would accept to debunk the Intercept article? None, period, because the Intercept article is gold and stands on its' own. The truth is simply un-debunkable.

[The Architect Of Fate]

So his response is just piling more shit on his already sizable mountain of shit.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, I’m not going to debunk that article for you. Apart from the obvious reasons why, I’m just not that interested.

I gleefully accept the charge of nitpicking.

Boru

Thank you for admitting that you were nitpicking. I see you were just trying to have a little fun being cheeky like you are with Brian37. You could have at least told me which parts of Helios blog meme poster you agreed with though, at least, if you were going to cause a fuss in the first place about me not responding to Helios blog poster quickly enough.

I’m not sure ‘admitting’ describes it best. That word implies something along the lines of an error that one feels guilty or ashamed about. I glory in picking nits. I revel in it. My favourite time of year is the annual nit harvest - nothing stirs me live seeing the sunlit fields of nit-stalks, waving majestically in the breeze.

Do NOT compare my dealings with you with the way I interacted with 37. There is nothing similar between the two.

I can’t tell you which bits I agreed or disagreed with, because I didn’t read it. As I told you before, I’m not that interested. But, by referring to its author snidely as a ‘blog poster’, you’re re-enforcing the idea that you’re less concerned with what people say than who happens to be saying it.

Boru

[Irreligious Atheist]

Thank you for admitting that you were nitpicking. I see you were just trying to have a little fun being cheeky like you are with Brian37. You could have at least told me which parts of Helios blog meme poster you agreed with though, at least, if you were going to cause a fuss in the first place about me not responding to Helios blog poster quickly enough.

I’m not sure ‘admitting’ describes it best. That word implies something along the lines of an error that one feels guilty or ashamed about. I glory in picking nits. I revel in it. My favourite time of year is the annual nit harvest - nothing stirs me live seeing the sunlit fields of nit-stalks, waving majestically in the breeze.

Do NOT compare my dealings with you with the way I interacted with 37. There is nothing similar between the two.

I can’t tell you which bits I agreed or disagreed with, because I didn’t read it. As I told you before, I’m not that interested. But, by referring to its author snidely as a ‘blog poster’, you’re re-enforcing the idea that you’re less concerned with what people say than who happens to be saying it.

Boru

So you never read Helios' blog poster link? I see. Did you even read the Intercept article? When people don't care about something, they usually don't comment on it and call out others for not reading links they haven't even read themselves, but you do you. And the nitpicking was fine and I'm glad to be corrected on my minor error, so thank you for that, as I like to have mistakes pointed out so I don't make them again, but I think multiple posts going on about that minor point was a bit much, but that's just imo.

If it was a blog poster that was making sense, then fine, but you haven't even read the link yourself, so how do you know the author/blog poster is not making as crazy of points as Alex Jones saying no children died at Sandy Hook? How can you criticize me for criticizing something you haven't even read?

My problem is not just that it's a blog poster, but that it's a blog poster who didn't do the proper research and admitted to posting misinformation multiple times in his own blog post. And the website appears to be passing itself off as some type of news website, when it seems to be a blog poster posting WWE memes who doesn't do the proper research before posting misinformation, which again, the author admits to, if you would just take a look at the article.