|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2007 : 17:20:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marty
Here's my concern...This is completely off topic. First, a conspiracy can be open (known) or closed (secret), but they must include a few people getting together to accomplish a goal. That goal usually, but doesn't have to be sinister.
Next, I believe the conspiracy that was originally discussed was that of the Vice-Presidency and whether Cheney's declaration of being separate from the Executive is in fact a power-grab that will set a precedent for future administrations. It could, in effect, if unchallenged or endorsed by the Supreme Court, become a position more powerful than the President solely due to it's lack of checks or balances.
...and now for my opinion...
...Yes, I do believe that it was an intentional power grab that can very easily lead to a undermining of the limits set forth in the Constitution.
|
A crushing blow to the attempt to obscure the point!
Yeaaa, Marty
 |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 05:41:40 [Permalink]
|
Just cause I'm bored at the moment I thought I would adress this.
Jerome said:
The fact that you think I showed that a conspiracy could be a high school chess team means that you did not read or did not understand what I wrote. |
Hmm, here is what you wrote:
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret.
 |
A highschool chess team exists to play against other highschools by working in harmony for the common end of winning the competition. What part of what you wrote did I not understand?
Granted what you wrote was stupid, but I think that was my point. How did I misapply your definition?
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 07:08:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
Just cause I'm bored at the moment I thought I would adress this.
Jerome said:
The fact that you think I showed that a conspiracy could be a high school chess team means that you did not read or did not understand what I wrote. |
Hmm, here is what you wrote:
Websters:
conspiracy: the act of conspiring together
conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end
No, a conspiracy does not have to be secret.
|
A highschool chess team exists to play against other highschools by working in harmony for the common end of winning the competition. What part of what you wrote did I not understand?
Granted what you wrote was stupid, but I think that was my point. How did I misapply your definition?
|
You are taking the relating definition out of context.
The question was could a conspiracy be opened.
If one reads the conversation one would have read, in context of the conversation:| I said it does not have to be secret. I did not say all conspiracies are open. |
I am referring to the fact that you are not understanding the context of the conversation. A conspiracy does not have to be secret. I do not understand why this is a contentious point.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 11:05:46 [Permalink]
|
| I am referring to the fact that you are not understanding the context of the conversation. A conspiracy does not have to be secret. I do not understand why this is a contentious point. |
You have berated people for not understanding words so I am just trying to understand your definition.
A highschool chess team does fit the definition of a conspiracy you supplied. I understood the context, highschool chess teams are not secret. Are you saying that the definition you supplied is not actually the definition you were just trying to prove a point?
Funny thing is that if you want to talk about context then the context of the Conspiracy Theories Folder is that they are clearly about secret conspiracies. It is almost like you have some sort of double standard - or that you are a troll. Imagine!
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 18:50:09 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by furshur
| I am referring to the fact that you are not understanding the context of the conversation. A conspiracy does not have to be secret. I do not understand why this is a contentious point. |
You have berated people for not understanding words so I am just trying to understand your definition.
A highschool chess team does fit the definition of a conspiracy you supplied. I understood the context, highschool chess teams are not secret. Are you saying that the definition you supplied is not actually the definition you were just trying to prove a point?
Funny thing is that if you want to talk about context then the context of the Conspiracy Theories Folder is that they are clearly about secret conspiracies. It is almost like you have some sort of double standard - or that you are a troll. Imagine!
|
The question is: Can a conspiracy not be secret?
Also: Have there been known conspiracies in human history?
I contend that the answers are yes. Do you say say otherwise?
These questions were the topic in discussion.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 19:37:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
These questions were the topic in discussion. |
No, the topic under discussion was conspiracy theories, which by definition only concern secret conspiracies.
Your questions about non-secret conspiracies were just an irrelevant diversion from that topic.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 07/19/2007 : 21:01:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
These questions were the topic in discussion. |
No, the topic under discussion was conspiracy theories, which by definition only concern secret conspiracies.
Your questions about non-secret conspiracies were just an irrelevant diversion from that topic.
|
I started the topic. I know what I was talking about. Do you suppose you know my mind?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
US Consitution is Defunct
