'Conspiracy Theory' = Censorship

espinolman

I have a theory that if something is to be censored in the mainstream media, what is to be censored is labelled a conspiracy theory , whatever it is we are not supposed to know about is labelled a conspiracy theory and then there is a media blackout on the subject , but it is not necessarily a conspiracy theory to begin with , its when it is to be censored that it is labelled a conspiracy theory .

And yesterday at about 9.30 am i think there was an example of this on the Gerry Ryan show on 2 FM
A caller rang in to the show and said he had seen something in the sky on sunday , the caller described what he had seen in the skies over wicklow on sunday , Gerry said they would try and get pilots to explain what the phenomenon was the caller describled
after that i think there were one or more callers describing similar phenomenon they had seen in the sky .
There seemed to be a discussion on the show with different callers on the subject of chemtrails .
And then out of the blue Gerry said 'i am not into conspiracy theories ' and i heard him say i think he said i hope there are no more callers with conspiracy theories , and all discussion about this just stopped.

I would suspect that higher ups may have told Gerry to STFU because he seemed to be into discussing this subject , he was going to try and get pilots on the show , but then all out of the blue the discussion was labelled ' conspiracy theory ' and there was no more discussion about chemtrails.

Do you see how our media is censored ?

King Mob

Or have you considered the much more likely possibility.

That the producers did a bit of research, found no reliable evidence for chemtrails, and told Gerry to move on to something less ridiculous.

humanji

I can't imagine that being censorship, just Gerry an co deciding that it wasn't worth their while talking about it. Would Alex Jones dedicate a show to Al Quaeda being behind 9/11? It's the same thing here, ie it's their show and they'll do what they like with it.

With regards the rest of our media, it would be more a case of giving what people want. They report on the stories that people will be interested in and require the least amount of effort to do. There's no real way you'd get RTE news and the like to do a full article on something like chemtrails as there's no real proof. If they did do an article, they'd risk being proven wrong and looking like fools. It's much easier and safer to follow the official line and do verifiable stories.

espinolman

humanji wrote: »

I can't imagine that being censorship, just Gerry an co deciding that it wasn't worth their while talking about it.

Yea but it is not a conspiracy , a man rang up the show and described what he had seen in the sky on sunday , now i saw the same thing , so if we see something strange in the sky we are not supposed to report it , because Gerry Ryan has labelled this a 'Conspiracy Theory' !

Gillo

Yeah, but in all fairness (and no insult meant) it's a pretty small story which wouldn't interest many people, Gerry's job is to appeal to the masses and keep them tuned in.

Diogenes

espinolman wrote: »

Yea but it is not a conspiracy , a man rang up the show and described what he had seen in the sky on sunday , now i saw the same thing , so if we see something strange in the sky we are not supposed to report it , because Gerry Ryan has labelled this a 'Conspiracy Theory' !

Yeah but if you're taking the concept of what WWGRD?* To this level, you have deeper issues.


*What Would Gerry Ryan Do? The usual answer is "Order Seconds".

humanji

But maybe Gerry doesn't believe that they are anything but contrails. He might of wanted to see if the conversation would go anywhere, it didn't and it was thought best to cut their loses and move onto the next topic.

Seriously, think about it. If Gerry started going on and on about conspiracy theories then he'd lose listeners and therefore money. And that's what's important to him: money. He wants a popular show that keeps people coming back.

bonkey

Sounds to me like someone wanted Gerry to start a discussion on chemtrails, and Gerry started to bite, only realising after a bit that this was the lane he was being led down.

He says he's not into conspiracy theories. There's possibly any number of reasons for that. Maybe his experience has shown him that it makes bad listener-numbers. Maybe his management feel its not what they want him covering.

Me...I don't think people label things as conspiracy theories to suppress them. They label them as conspiracy theories because they fit the profile of a conspiracy theory.

meglome

And if there was some evidence of these chemtrails that didn't involve showing some nice pictures of contrails and clouds that might make all the difference.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Sounds to me like someone wanted Gerry to start a discussion on chemtrails, and Gerry started to bite, only realising after a bit that this was the lane he was being led down.

He says he's not into conspiracy theories. There's possibly any number of reasons for that. Maybe his experience has shown him that it makes bad listener-numbers. Maybe his management feel its not what they want him covering.

Me...I don't think people label things as conspiracy theories to suppress them. They label them as conspiracy theories because they fit the profile of a conspiracy theory.

You're making an irrational amount of assumptions with a particular bias against conspiracy theories there.

More likely, let's use Occums Razor; Gerry listens to what people are saying, decides it sounds a little like that kooky conspiracy stuff that people are always sneered and jeered about (eg. Jim Corr) and decided not to even entertain the notion for fear of ridicule/not being perceived as the intelligent journo. It's intellectual snobbery, pure and simple.

Kernel

Gillo wrote: »

Yeah, but in all fairness (and no insult meant) it's a pretty small story which wouldn't interest many people, Gerry's job is to appeal to the masses and keep them tuned in.

People in Ireland wouldn't be interested in having chemicals sprayed on them? You really believe that?

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

People in Ireland wouldn't be interested in having chemicals sprayed on them? You really believe that?

If there was any evidence of it I'd imagine they would be very interested.

thecommander

If I rang the Gerry Ryan show and told them my sh1t was glowing orange, I bet you money that they'd get about 100 calls of people claiming the same. They'd soon see this going nowhere, and tell people to stop calling about it. Would this be a conspiracy?

espinolman

Kernel wrote: »

It's intellectual snobbery, pure and simple.

It says in this article that 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative term created by the elite ! :
http://www.whale.to/a/conspiracy.html

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

It says in this article that 'conspiracy theorist' is a pejorative term created by the elite ! :
http://www.whale.to/a/conspiracy.html

Says here in this article that it isn't
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/24132/CT.txt

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

If there was any evidence of it I'd imagine they would be very interested.

Well, evidently there was eyewitness testimony but Gerry couldn't be arsed entertaining the idea.

thecommander

Kernel wrote: »

Well, evidently there was eyewitness testimony but Gerry couldn't be arsed entertaining the idea

More an editorial decision rather than censorship I'd say.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Well, evidently there was eyewitness testimony but Gerry couldn't be arsed entertaining the idea.

I'd imagine the listeners would be riveted to hear about clouds that look a bit strange. Maybe he thought he saw a ghostie in the clouds.

espinolman

meglome wrote: »

I'd imagine the listeners would be riveted to hear about clouds that look a bit strange. Maybe he thought he saw a ghostie in the clouds.

There was more than one caller talking about chemtrails but the discussion ceased when Gerry Ryan said those magic perjorative words 'conspiracy theory':eek:

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

There was more than one caller talking about chemtrails but the discussion ceased when Gerry Ryan said those magic perjorative words 'conspiracy theory':eek:

I don't believe in chemtrails just cause. I don't believe in them because the only evidence is some pictures of contrails and clouds, which isn't evidence.

So if people are ringing up about something that cannot be shown to exist and is associated with conspiracy theory's listeners would switch off fast I'd say. So Mr or Mrs RTE person running Gerry's show is gonna cut it.

thecommander

espinolman wrote: »

There was more than one caller talking about chemtrails but the discussion ceased when Gerry Ryan said those magic perjorative words 'conspiracy theory':eek:

1. Caller #1 calls in an explains about what he saw
2. Number of calls come in about what people think they saw
3. Researcher goes online to find out more info on it
4. Researcher comes across threads similar to our own Chemtrails thread
5. Few more callers call in about how the NWO are poisoning us from above
6. Producer looks at clock and realises they cant fit this in between the news and the "write a poem about Nescafe and win a trip to Rome" competition
7. Researcher passes on the info that they found to Gerry
8. Gerry says the famous sentence
9. Conversation over

10. Self perpetuating loop begins.

Kernel

thecommander wrote: »

More an editorial decision rather than censorship I'd say.

Yes, I agree. I think what this thread alludes to is the MSM (i never liked that term) scotoma with regard to anything branded as 'koooooky conspiracy theory land'.

espinolman

thecommander wrote: »

More an editorial decision rather than censorship I'd say.

Sounded to me like they were getting too close to the truth .

"Whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth."

---

former CIA employee, Michael Hasty:----Ref

from
http://www.whale.to/a/conspiracy.html

tony 2 tone

You can hear the show from Tuesday here : http://2fm.rte.ie/previously_played
Move the slider up to find around 29 odd minutes or so.
It's a light hearted talk show, the gents talked about chem trails, didn't offer any evidence, apart from the "I've done research on it, look at youtube"

Went for a break, talked about toliet paper in packet of smokes, then a few texts replying to the chem trails issue. Then an other break. And back to talking about cigarettes going missing from packs. Then I lost the will to live.
I'd hardly say censorship, more likely Gerry didn't take it seriously, and his listeners didn't know or didn't care for the topic.

thebman

I'd say too many boring people called in TBH.

It makes for perfect radio if you get some crazies that the norms can laugh at.

Such populism basically seems to be what Gerry Ryan is about so I'm guessing it just wasn't juicy enough a topic for him.

Anyway, they are contrails. If the government was dumping chemicals in the air you should be able to detect them by conducting tests.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

You're making an irrational amount of assumptions with a particular bias against conspiracy theories there.

Actually, Kernel, I'm trying to avoid making assumptions. I'm taking Ryan at his word, rather than assuming he meant something other than what he said.

In addition, I'm not trying to assume his unstated reasons for taking his stance, acknowledging instead that there are a number of reasons why he may have done so.

Where I did make an assumption, I also chose my words to make it clear I was describing what it sounds like to me, rather than trying to suggest its what happened.

The one assumption I would stand by is that I believe the original caller was not calling because they had no idea what they saw, but rather wanted to initiate a discussion regarding chemtrails. Whether thats correct or not, its certainly not a bias against conspiracy theories. I also believe there's nothing irrational about the assumption.

More likely, let's use Occums Razor; Gerry listens to what people are saying, decides it sounds a little like that kooky conspiracy stuff that people are always sneered and jeered about (eg. Jim Corr) and decided not to even entertain the notion for fear of ridicule/not being perceived as the intelligent journo.

So basically, after criticising me for making assumptions, you make all the same ones, and more to boot...

Kernel

I'll disect the post to show the bias in your assumptions, if I must Bonkey.

bonkey wrote: »

Sounds to me like someone wanted Gerry to start a discussion on chemtrails, and Gerry started to bite, only realising after a bit that this was the lane he was being led down.

Not too bad an assumption, seems rational enough. I'm with you at this point.

bonkey wrote: »

He says he's not into conspiracy theories. There's possibly any number of reasons for that. Maybe his experience has shown him that it makes bad listener-numbers.

That's a biased assumption as to why he killed the discussion. Bad listener numbers? Some of the highest rated internet websites and shows are focussed on discussing conspiracy theories. Look at the publicity and interest in the Jim Corr interview for an Irish example.

bonkey wrote: »

Maybe his management feel its not what they want him covering.

Again, this assumption doesn't hold up, as Ryan largely decides what topics to discuss each day, as can be heard by listening to the show. Caller rings in to complain about the price of tea bags today, Gerry confesses he knows next to nothing about tea-bags, but continues the discussion (often to tedious levels) gaining information (sometimes incorrect information, but Gerry is none the wiser) from other callers and the rest of us doze off at the wheel. In a show of that format, why would we assume his management are in his ear shouting 'don't talk about the price of tea-bags Gerry, it's bad for listener ratings', to which Gerry instantly replies that he is killing the conversation? It's apparent that Ryan is the one who directs the flow of the show, and it's more plausible that he killed the discussion for the reasons I have given. Fear of ridicule and the intellectual snobbery of 'I'm not even going to discuss it, as it's clearly all horsecrap'.

bonkey wrote: »

Me...I don't think people label things as conspiracy theories to suppress them. They label them as conspiracy theories because they fit the profile of a conspiracy theory.

What do you mean by this? What's the profile of a conspiracy theory? Again, you're showing a bias here. The problem is that you think all this stuff is nonsense too Bonkey, and it shows most of the time - whether consciously or not. Simple things like the fact that you never post in support of any aspect of CTs - even in this case making implausible assumptions as to why Ryan killed the discussion, rather than just admitting that it is because of the blackened and ridiculed name such research and investigation constantly endures and concordantly the hesitation of those who perceive themselves as serious people to engage in them.

Reading through the feedback thread, it seems I must have a mental imbalance of some kind. I don't believe I have, but hey, if I am interested in the topics of this forum, I must have eh? That seems to be the point of this thread.

As to your later reply of me making assumptions, yes, I did go on to make assumptions, but my assumptions are more plausible than yours - hence my use of the infamous Occums Razor. I guess we won't know until Gerry himself comes on and gives his honest reasons for his action.

thecommander

Kernel wrote: »

I guess we won't know until Gerry himself comes on and gives his honest reasons for his action.

He's coming on? Here?

humanji

Kernel, there's a difference between someone making an assumption and someone offering possible reasons. The first quote from Bonkey you gave is an assumption. The second two are possible reason as to why Ryan stopped the topic from going further.

You, on the other hand, made the assumption that it must be because of the "blackened and ridiculed name such research and investigation constantly endures" and assuming that this is what Bonkey really believes.. As it stands, nobody knows why the topic got cut short, and so all we have are guesses. There's little point assuming anything.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

That's a biased assumption as to why he killed the discussion.

Its not an assumption. Although you included it in the quote, you're ignoring the sentence that preceeds it, saying that there are a number of possibilities. I am offering one of the possibilities, not assuming it is truth.

Again, this assumption doesn't hold up,

But again, its not an assumption. Its another possibility. I don't know how you figure that I'm assuming two seperate reasons for the same action, rather than offering two seperate possibilities to illustrate my point that there are many possibilities.

What do you mean by this? What's the profile of a conspiracy theory?

Rather than answer that, lets just read on a bit in your reply,...

Again, you're showing a bias here. The problem is that you think all this stuff is nonsense too Bonkey, and it shows most of the time - whether consciously or not. Simple things like the fact that you never post in support of any aspect of CTs

What was that? I never post in support of any aspect of CTs? To make such a claim, Kernel, you must have an understanding of what constitutes "aspects of Conspiracy Theories", yet you act all confused at what I might mean when I say something fits the profile of a Conspiracy Theory.

How is that? How is it that you can tell what a conspiracy theory is, but are not only confused, but apparently incensed that I would suggest that others could do likewise.

Note also, that I made my comment neutrally. I didn't limit my comment to people who have no interest in CTs, nor in those who don't believe in them...merely that people call things Conspiracy Theories because they perceive them to be just that.

rather than just admitting that it is because of the blackened and ridiculed name such research and investigation constantly endures

That's because I'm not willing to assume the reasons, Kernel. I'm saying there are a number of possibilities, and I don't have the information at hand to make an informed decision.

I'd readily accept that it is probable that somewhere in the reason, it will come down to someone (or some group) having a dislike for Conspiracy Theories. I don't know if that's Ryan, his management, his listenership, or anyone else...so I see a number of possibilities.

Reading through the feedback thread, it seems I must have a mental imbalance of some kind. I don't believe I have, but hey, if I am interested in the topics of this forum, I must have eh? That seems to be the point of this thread.

I guess I must have a mental imbalance then too, right? After all, I'm interested in the topics of this forum. My interest may not be the same as yours, but its still a valid interest.

I don't case judgement on people here for their beliefs. I don't judge people differently based on whether they believe in some, all or no conspiracies.

As to your later reply of me making assumptions, yes, I did go on to make assumptions, but my assumptions are more plausible than yours

You've agreed with the only assumptions I made. The rest of my post didn't make assumptions...you just misread it as such.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Its not an assumption. Although you included it in the quote, you're ignoring the sentence that preceeds it, saying that there are a number of possibilities. I am offering one of the possibilities, not assuming it is truth.

You present a possibility arguing against the pro-ct, and back it up with unlikely assumptions. If you didn't personally assume, then you insinuate that we should assume. Yeah, it was down to ratings... that sounds feasible.

bonkey wrote: »

What was that? I never post in support of any aspect of CTs? To make such a claim, Kernel, you must have an understanding of what constitutes "aspects of Conspiracy Theories", yet you act all confused at what I might mean when I say something fits the profile of a Conspiracy Theory.

Sorry, I should have said you never support any aspect in favour of a conspiracy theory.

bonkey wrote: »

Note also, that I made my comment neutrally. I didn't limit my comment to people who have no interest in CTs, nor in those who don't believe in them...merely that people call things Conspiracy Theories because they perceive them to be just that.

It's clear what your intent is, and you are not neutral. A neutral person would not only attack the conspiracy theories and disregard the myriad of incorrect, debunker side arguments.

bonkey wrote: »

I guess I must have a mental imbalance then too, right? After all, I'm interested in the topics of this forum. My interest may not be the same as yours, but its still a valid interest.

Your only interest then is to debunk conspiracy theories? Or is there nothing, not one part of any of the many conspiracy theories that you believe is true? Why do you seek to project the impression that you are similar to a conspiracy theorist? What do you think a CTer even is? I'll tell you what part of it is; an ability to come to an educated conclusion based on belief, in the absence of irrefutable evidence.

bonkey wrote: »

I don't case judgement on people here for their beliefs. I don't judge people differently based on whether they believe in some, all or no conspiracies.

Words are easy to speak, actions more difficult to hide.

bonkey wrote: »

You've agreed with the only assumptions I made. The rest of my post didn't make assumptions...you just misread it as such.

You can argue semantics, but the post is there for others to see. The post shows an anti-CT serial debunker attempting to throw out vague assumptions and insinuations to discredit the probability that there are ingrained negative connotations, in society, against conspiracy theories and those who wish to discuss them.

espinolman

I listened to the Gerry Ryan show on tuesday again , on the internet, now there were two callers from wicklow who had seen something in the sky on sunday , the first caller described what he had seen and then another caller came on about it , now it is Gerry Ryan who keeps labelling these observations as 'conspiracy theories' later on after a break he says " the martians are coming after us , the chemtrails " ,

Kernel

espinolman wrote: »

now it is Gerry Ryan who keeps labelling these observations as 'conspiracy theories' later on after a break he says " the martians are coming after us , the chemtrails " ,

Thanks, and QED the intellectual snobbery.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

You present a possibility arguing against the pro-ct, and back it up with unlikely assumptions.

I presented possibilities. I didn't back anything up with "unlikely assumptions". You are assuming that the possibilities I presented are unlikely, as is your perogative...but please...stop trying to have a go at me, saying I made assumptions when I'm telling you for a fact that I presented possibilities without making assumptions as to whether or not they were true, and without passing comment on relative likelihood.

Sorry, I should have said you never support any aspect in favour of a conspiracy theory.

If that's what you meant to say, thats fine. You're still showing that you understand just fine what constitutes a conspiracy theory, which is the point I was making....you pretend confusion at me suggestng that others may be able to do this, but can clearly do so yourself.

It's clear what your intent is, and you are not neutral. A neutral person would not only attack the conspiracy theories and disregard the myriad of incorrect, debunker side arguments.

Your only interest then is to debunk conspiracy theories? Or is there nothing, not one part of any of the many conspiracy theories that you believe is true? Why do you seek to project the impression that you are similar to a conspiracy theorist? What do you think a CTer even is? I'll tell you what part of it is; an ability to come to an educated conclusion based on belief, in the absence of irrefutable evidence.

I think you've misread the intent of my comments again, Kernel.

I'm not interested in justifying myself to you, nor in engaging in your personally-focussed diatribe against me.

I offered a topic-relevant explanation for a comment that I made...to illustrate that interest in conspiracy theories does not have to equate with belief in them.

If you want to (once again) have a go at me for what I believe in or for my reasons for posting here, you're in the wrong place.

You can argue semantics, but the post is there for others to see.

I'm not arguing semantics. I'm trying to correct your misinterpretation of what I said...mostly to try and ensure that others get a chance to hear my version of what I meant, in case they too found my point unclear.

But you're right...the post is there for others to see...which begs the question as to why you feel the need to tell them how to interpret it.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

But you're right...the post is there for others to see...which begs the question as to why you feel the need to tell them how to interpret it.

Fair enough Bonkey, the truth is revealed. I'm not suggesting how anyone should interpret it, merely revealing it's finer points and offering you the chance to reply with your side.

You still never answered my questions on your own belief on conspiracy theories, or any aspect of a conspiracy theory? Why is that? Do you think it's all b0llocks bonkey? If you do that's fine, but let's put our cards on the table.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Fair enough Bonkey, the truth is revealed. I'm not suggesting how anyone should interpret it, merely revealing it's finer points and offering you the chance to reply with your side.

You're flat-out saying that my clarification of what I meant is wrong. I've clarified what I meant, for fear it was any way unclear. You can accept that or not...but I see nothing to discuss if your stance is that I meant something other than what I've clarified I meant....because you're in effect saying that I'm lying.

You still never answered my questions on your own belief on conspiracy theories, or any aspect of a conspiracy theory? Why is that? Do you think it's all b0llocks bonkey? If you do that's fine, but let's put our cards on the table.

Allow me to repeat myself...it may have been added in a "ninja edit":

If you want to (once again) have a go at me for what I believe in or for my reasons for posting here, you're in the wrong place.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

You're flat-out saying that my clarification of what I meant is wrong. I've clarified what I meant, for fear it was any way unclear. You can accept that or not...but I see nothing to discuss if your stance is that I meant something other than what I've clarified I meant....because you're in effect saying that I'm lying.

If you want to (once again) have a go at me for what I believe in or for my reasons for posting here, you're in the wrong place.

I'm not having a go at you, or calling you a lier bonkey. The tactic of taking the moral high ground to discredit me is not necessary. This is nothing personal, it is relevent to the topic being discussed in this thread. The topic that people will refuse to engage in any research or discussion into a thing labelled a 'conspiracy theory' due to societal memes put out as disinformation that all such things are bunk and below addressing. Specifically Gerry Ryan, who you have defended using unlikely assumptions/possibilities (call them what you wish).

You as a moderator are a part of what this topic is discussing, and I've merely highlighted the fact that (perhaps unconsciously?) you do not engage in any discussion here in support of any conspiracy theory, instead you focus on the business of debunking what you can and ignoring the mainsteam side's logical fallacies. My questioning your attitude to conspiracy theories is entirely relevent in proving my whole point in entering this thread discussion you see. Attitudes can cause a type of censorship. Yet still you haven't answered?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Specifically Gerry Ryan, who you have defended using unlikely assumptions/possibilities (call them what you wish).

I haven't defended him. I've suggested that we do not have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions. I have no issue with someone disagreeing with that. I took issue with the claim that I was making assumptions which I wasn't making....and the direct insinuation that this was because of beliefs and biases that I hold.

You as a moderator are a part of what this topic is discussing,

If you have an issue with the moderation on this forum, then - just like a discussion on my beliefs - this is not the place. Take your complaints to Helpdesk, or give it a rest.

My posts outside of moderation have nothing to do with me being a moderator.

Yet still you haven't answered?

A central tenet of the charter is to attack the post, not the poster. The poster's beliefs are therefore, implicitly, out of bounds.

I will defend - and have defended - other posters from having their beliefs challenged in this manner.

My beliefs are, to be blunt, none of your business, and have no place in discussion on this forum.

bonkey

Here's a youtube of the first two callers.

At about 2:00, the first caller refers to these trails as "chemtrails"...so its clearly the original caller who introduces the term into the discussion.

Note also that during the discussion between the two callers, they argue at one point that regular flights don't fly criss-cross patterns, and at another point that it could be effects from something mixed into the fuel of regular flights.

espinolman

bonkey wrote: »

Here's a youtube of the first two callers.

At about 2:00, the first caller refers to these trails as "chemtrails"...so its clearly the original caller who introduces the term into the discussion.

It is Gerry Ryan who introduces the term 'conspiracy theory' into the discussion.

bonkey wrote: »

Note also that during the discussion between the two callers, they argue at one point that regular flights don't fly criss-cross patterns

Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional , so this i think is very serious , if our skies are being intentionally sprayed with chemicals that may be toxic .

King Mob

espinolman wrote: »

It is Gerry Ryan who introduces the term 'conspiracy theory' into the discussion.

And if you look at Wikipedia it's:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemtrail_conspiracy_theory

It's also the first result with Google.
I'd imagine it's the first thing the producers checked.

espinolman wrote: »

Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional , so this i think is very serious , if our skies are being intentionally sprayed with chemicals that may be toxic .

Intentional flight paths for commerical flights, yes.
And there isn't a scrap of evidence to support chemtrail's existence let alone the toxicity of any chemical they might contain.

meglome

espinolman wrote: »

Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional , so this i think is very serious , if our skies are being intentionally sprayed with chemicals that may be toxic .

espinolman I personally would join any campaign to stop this if it could be shown to be real. So step 1 is to show these planes exist. If it just happens to be the 6pm flight from London to Dublin then you'll forgive me but I won't be a believer. If I could even think of a good reason for spraying from the air instead of putting something in our water but I can't.

bonkey

espinolman wrote: »

It is Gerry Ryan who introduces the term 'conspiracy theory' into the discussion.

I agree. It was.

On the other hand, I don't think its unreasonable to categorise 'chemtrails' as a Conspiracy Theory. Do you? Do you think discussion of them has no place on this forum?

Criss-cross patters would indicate it is intentional

That's not the point I was making.

Either you have a situation where regular flight paths cannot generate a criss-cross pattern, or you can have a situation where this spraying is made by mixing stuff with the fuel in regular flights.

You cannot have both.

You cannot have a situation where regular flights do not fly these flight paths, and are flying these flight paths with something mixed in their fuel.

One or other of the claims must be incorrect.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

I haven't defended him. I've suggested that we do not have sufficient evidence to draw conclusions. I have no issue with someone disagreeing with that. I took issue with the claim that I was making assumptions which I wasn't making....and the direct insinuation that this was because of beliefs and biases that I hold.

Indirectly you are still defending his actions by posting alternatives which are more implausible than my hypothesis on the situation.

bonkey wrote: »

If you have an issue with the moderation on this forum, then - just like a discussion on my beliefs - this is not the place. Take your complaints to Helpdesk, or give it a rest.

You're getting nedlessly defensive bonkey. Re-read my point. I don't have an issue with your moderation of the forum. The point is that beliefs that conspiracy theories are bunk and unworthy of discussion permeates through the media, and is influenced by those who have some form of control over that media. Gerry Ryan clearly believes conspiracy theories are all rubbish and refuses to discuss them. You also seem to hold that opinion, and it can show in a bias in your posting - such as occurred in this thread, but can also be seen in other threads.

bonkey wrote: »

My posts outside of moderation have nothing to do with me being a moderator.

Again, I'm not criticising your moderation. But the debunking crew will obviously see your posts and be (maybe even subconsciously) encouraged to believe that all conspiracy theories are rubbish. It therefore creates a hardcore crew of serial debunkers creating polarisation and hostility in the forum. A form of censorship the OP is talking about.

bonkey wrote: »

A central tenet of the charter is to attack the post, not the poster. The poster's beliefs are therefore, implicitly, out of bounds.

I will defend - and have defended - other posters from having their beliefs challenged in this manner.

My beliefs are, to be blunt, none of your business, and have no place in discussion on this forum.

I have attacked you? How? By asking relevent and pertinent questions to this thread? By asking if you believe in any conspiracy theory? That's not an attack bonkey.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

You're getting nedlessly defensive bonkey. Re-read my point. I don't have an issue with your moderation of the forum.

You'll have to forgive me. When someone says its clear what my intent is, tells me I'm not neutral, and says that I am "anti-CT", and goes on to say that being a moderator I am part of what the topic is discussing, then I understood that to mean that I, as a moderator, am not neutral, have a clear intent, and am anti-CT.

I accept your clarification that this isn't what you mean, but hope you can see where my confusion arose from.

Gerry Ryan clearly believes conspiracy theories are all rubbish and refuses to discuss them. You also seem to hold that opinion, and it can show in a bias in your posting - such as occurred in this thread, but can also be seen in other threads.

I refuse to discuss conspiracy theories, and show a bias whilst discussing consspiracy theories? How does that work? You seem be be conflating "discussing" with "supporting" or "agreeing with".

But the debunking crew will obviously see your posts and be (maybe even subconsciously) encouraged to believe that all conspiracy theories are rubbish.

The purpose of this forum, Kernel, is to promote discussion....which is what I have always tried to do here.

I'm not going to apologise to anyone for arguing my corner, no more than I would expect anyone else to apologise for arguing theirs. It is, fundamentally, the purpose of this forum...to give people of differing perspectives a level playing field to discuss their differing perspectives.

People are free to take what they want from those discussions. If someone misunderstands my arguments, but doesn't engage in the discussion, I can't be responsible for that...no more than you can be responsible for someone misunderstanding yours, if they don't engage with you.

It therefore creates a hardcore crew of serial debunkers creating polarisation and hostility in the forum. A form of censorship the OP is talking about.

The alternative would be what? A forum where such voices are stifled...creating a different form of censorship?

No-one is censoring anything here, unless it breaches the charter. People are denied a soapbox from which they can propagandise their beliefs unchallenged, but no-one is denied the right to engage in a discussion to put forward their point of view.

You mightn't like the outcome of that, but its unfair to call it censorship.

I have attacked you? How?

You've stated flat-out that I'm biased, have a clear intent here, and then repeatedly asked me about the beliefs that underly the positions I take.

This isn't addressing (attacking) my arguments, its addressing (attacking) the reasons I have for making those arguments. You're making this about me rather than about my arguments. That line in the charter is there to make it clear that this is out of bounds.

It doesn't matter one whit whether you feel its relevant or not. Its out of bounds unless I freely choose to answer your question...and I've made it clear that I'm not going to do that. So please...accept my response.

Two years ago, you started a thread asking if I was a misinformation agent, or if it was just "a psychological make up to be contrary and argue with others". Two years on, and you're still trying to make this about my reasons for posting...about the poster and not the post.

Its old. Its tired. Please...give it a rest.

6th

Lads, I'm locking this for an hour to give both of you time to think. This thread could be very good but accusations and off-topic posts can ruin it. If this continues after the thread is reopened then infractions can and will be given to everyone involved.

6th

Re-opened. no excuses now.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

I refuse to discuss conspiracy theories, and show a bias whilst discussing consspiracy theories? How does that work? You seem be be conflating "discussing" with "supporting" or "agreeing with".

No, Gerry Ryan refuses to discuss them. I was talking about Gerry Ryan, although you demonstrate the same beliefs as Gerry, with the exception that you obviously discuss them - in the form of debunking anyways.

bonkey wrote: »

The purpose of this forum, Kernel, is to promote discussion....which is what I have always tried to do here.

The purpose of the forum is to promote discussion of CTs. That balance is skewed in favour of hostility against the subject matter. That creates a problem wouldn't you agree? Judging by yet another feedback complaint from a regular contributor, I'd say it does. Gerry flat out refuses to discuss anything labelled a 'conspiracy theory', but here you can discuss something labelled a conspiracy theory and be mocked.

Once again I wonder why I bother posting and spending time here instead of on a real conspiracy forum like ATS. I'm here a long time at this stage, many others have given up and gone elsewhere. And that's what happens and will happen when the forum goes the way it goes - with great hostility and sneering of those who contribute to the subject matter. Is that a form of censorship? It's arguable - but I know that it's not the way it should be.

Feck it, I reckon I'll take a break from the forum as it's just annoying at this stage - a waste of time and breath. Enjoy the mocking chaps, I'll keep my views to ATS.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Feck it, I reckon I'll take a break from the forum as it's just annoying at this stage - a waste of time and breath. Enjoy the mocking chaps, I'll keep my views to ATS.

Remind me, is this your 4th, 5th or 6th flounce from this forum?

Enjoy the Conspiracy theory cheerleading forum.

ATS the MUTC forum of conspiracy theories "Thread titles include "Just how awesome is Eric Cantona?"

6th

Ok thread locked. If anyone has a post they feel is on topic and worth posting Pm it to me - if its worth opening the thread for I will. Think before you PM>.