Something needs to be done about the conspiracy theories forum

Except that regular poster wasn't the 1st to jump on the CT bandwagon on that thread.

Definitely 1 poster made a CT link beforehand

"RIP all those who lost their lives. I remember vividly when a classmate told us "6000 people are dead in America" while waiting for our schoolbus. Thought he was joking and laughed at him.

Terrible that a country can do such a thing to its own people"

I'd argue that a few more alluded to it too, without being as forthright.

If anyone had alluded to it, the discussion didn't turn in that direction.

The poster I mentioned previously was actively attempting to bring the topic of conspiracy theories to the fore in the discussion something like three full pages after the post you mentioned was ignored.

Both sides of the Conspiracy theories forum divide are equally obsessed with the subject matter, if you can't stand back and see that then there's not much else that can be said to you.

I dont like how this thread or the CT forum is going so please close it down!

That's what you're basically saying, you don't like to be questioned and you want an echo chamber where your opinion is never questioned 🤣

At that point in the thread they were the only person mentioning conspiracy theories.

Should I have said" they were the only person mentioning Conspiracy theories at that exact point"?

What is the cut off point for you? The word conspiracy hadn't been mentioned until they said it.

If you're going to be both pedantic and condescending you could give some consideration to what you yourself are stating as fact.

This is a prime example of the type of snarky nonsense the Conspiracy theories forum is renowned for.

There was one particular thread where a poster repeatedly asked someone “What justification would they have to fake the space program” when the thread wasn’t even about the space program and the guy kept saying over and over again ad nauseam that he believed the space program was real.

To me this is not in good faith and just a blatant attempt to stifle any discussion.

One person didn't allude to it.

They stated it, it's in bold a few posts up. Yet that's ignored, along with the other posts that made allusions all made on the same day.

What's the cut off point for you?

Not reading the 1st page? Ignoring facts that don't fit the narrative you want to shape? When does it become ok to ignore one post laying out the CT but then blame someone else who mentions it for bringing it up?

As for belligerence? There's none on my part.

But, isn't it interesting that when it's pointed out to you that you're wrong, that an example is provided and that you choose to double down on that? That it's belligerence or some notion of defending my side you run to? I'm not on a side, yes I've often posted on the same side of a discussion as the poster you singled out. But we aren't buddies, we don't interact, there's no Skeptics payroll and my only particular interest in this aspect currently is the gymnastics you engage in.

It was the same day, the thread wasn't yet 1 day old. What's the cutoff?

You made a claim that was false, shown to be false and now you are moaning that because noone else discussed the 1st claim it wasn't an active topic? On a less than 1 day old thread...

Really? Why not just acknowledge you took a swing at a poster, that you were wrong and move on?

What points? That you're the victim of some sort of witch hunt?

Like I said you're all equally strange in that forum by any objective metric.

They may have done, I don't know. I wouldn't assume to speak for them, much less use their post as an effort to bemoan the state of the CT forum. But given they were replying to 2nd page post as their own 1st post? I doubt it.

However the post that your target responded too? Is IMO very much a CT post, its the usual means of introducing remote control or similar as the hijack pilots couldn't possibly have flown with enough skill to hit the building. Indeed if they could, how did they miss the pentagon.

From just reading back on the thread, even before your own 1st post on the thread question...

The CT'ers were posting even before your target made his PSA. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet regarding them and a blindness to the other mentions of similar.

Why is that?

I've already stated that the closure of the CT forum wouldn't be a bad thing. I said it in my first post on this thread.

Why would he need to justify a reason when he kept saying over and over he didn’t believe that conspiracy. It’s a bad faith attempt on your own part to muddy the waters and make the guy look like a loon who didn’t believe in the space program.

That poster was suggesting that there would be an influx of conspiracy supporting users taking over that thread, as if boards.ie is awash with that sort of stuff, it isn't. The thread didn't go that way (much to their chagrin no doubt) and their assertion was in itself showing a belief in a ridiculous notion with no basis in reality, so. Etching they surely would happily show up for being patently ridiculous themselves.

They were wrong to say that. Did I miss one post alluding to conspiracy? Yeah, maybe because it was so inconsequential (nobody made much of an issue of it bar one reply saying "we've got a live one here").

What I don't like is the holier than thou attitude some regular CT forum users have, and the co descending attitude they display along side it.

I disagree with the characterisation of anti-conspiracy posters as simply "challenging views" and I've already said why.

Swamping threads with lists of questions, treating everywhere as a hostile witness and not allowing discussions to develop naturally makes the forum pointless.

I have good back-and-forths on the COVID forum where I am challenging "official science" but dealing often in hunches where I don't have a litany of evidence to back up every thought.

I hope mods can make some kind of change but hey whatever it's just an internet forum.

"not allowing discussions to develop naturally makes the forum pointless."

How do you have a "discussion" when one side repeatedly refuses to discuss? Again we have a simple issue here of

A: Makes claim

B: Asks for A's evidence for said claim

A then refuses to engage, dodges all questions and repeats claim. That's not a discussion.

If you think what I am saying is incorrect then you obviously have never read the CT threads.

There you are mentioning discussion again, yet you are one of the people trying to prevent it. That’s a little odd.

I recall that thread where you and Kingmob were beating the holocaust denial drum against a poster who had stated repeatedly they were not a holocaust denier (the argument was that they're inclusion of non Jewish people as victims of the holocaust was not accurate in your and Kingmobs views), in the end I believe there was a climb down by Kingmob if not yourself on that thread.

But thanks for outlining what my problem with you and your cronies actually is. You are a bunch of condescending people who happily sling mud at anyone.

No it wouldn't be ridiculous. It would be the honest thing to do or else ban certain posters.

Neither the anti-vaccine/pro-vaccine thread on After Hours nor the COVID forums are a troll circus. The CT forum is.

No.