Joeseph Stack's Suicide Letter

[Atern]

Originally Posted by Bannedfornoreason [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty. – Thomas Jefferson

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul, can always count on the support of Paul. – George Bernard Shaw

America needs fewer laws, not more prisons. – James Bovard

There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him. – Robert Heinlein

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. – Goethe

Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under. – H.L. Mencken

The power to tax is the power to destroy. – John Marshall

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. – Edward R. Murrow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJQ_lE6UL1o

You forgot:

"The cake is a lie."

[Ikeren]

@Hasbinbad: Consistent lack of credible evidence with conspiracy theories I've been presented with thus far is good reason to be moderately sceptical of new ones; especially new ones which are presented with not much evidence and lots of language like; "government wins, hello communism," and, "Fight the ocean, you will drown," oh, and here's a real gem; "...the rotting pig stew we're in..." Ockham's Razor is also a decent starting point. I think examining conspiracy theories makes sense, but many theories and proponents of theories do an exceptionally poor job of providing engaging arguments or evidence to people prior to the "buying the book" stage (which, because of the failure to provide engaging arguments or evidence, fewer people get to). Instead, vague generalizations and mockery of anyone who doesn't immediately say "Oh, look at your vague generalizations, this book seems great, I should go buy it" is generally met with mockery; which again, isn't conducive to getting people to engage with the theory.

@IRS: Post some of the arguments contained in the book, a real summary or explanation of the arguments/examples? Thus far, we have nothing more than "there is such thing as a conspiracy theory of history, and this such book exists." I have a torrent of The Unseen Hand running, but it has basically no seeders, so it's going to take a while. Then reading it, and looking up the evidence it presents. If we're going to have a discussion, you are probably much better off posting a little more of the books content.

I have made extensive use of quotations from the works of others as a means of convincing the skeptic that the evidence of the Conspiracy's existence comes from others than this author.

With that line, I look forward to reading the book; but you can't expect me to be anything but a sceptic until A) I've read the book, or B) Someone has presented me with some of the arguments/evidence contained in the book.

Furthermore, since your interest is to get the most people to read this book and recognize the examples and arguments contained therein as true, you are better off providing some of those arguments, because a person is more likely to go to the effort to buy and read a book if they have initial reason to believe the book is going to be interesting and provide new evidence and arguments. At the moment, I am moderately sceptical that the book won't be something I haven't read a dozen times before. David Icke was crazy, but at least his material represented a new progression of old ideas.

So yeah; I am interested, but give me some material to go on.

[IRS]

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

@Hasbinbad: Consistent lack of credible evidence with conspiracy theories I've been presented with thus far is good reason to be moderately sceptical of new ones; especially new ones which are presented with not much evidence and lots of language like; "government wins, hello communism," and, "Fight the ocean, you will drown," oh, and here's a real gem; "...the rotting pig stew we're in..." Ockham's Razor is also a decent starting point. I think examining conspiracy theories makes sense, but many theories and proponents of theories do an exceptionally poor job of providing engaging arguments or evidence to people prior to the "buying the book" stage (which, because of the failure to provide engaging arguments or evidence, fewer people get to). Instead, vague generalizations and mockery of anyone who doesn't immediately say "Oh, look at your vague generalizations, this book seems great, I should go buy it" is generally met with mockery; which again, isn't conducive to getting people to engage with the theory.

@IRS: Post some of the arguments contained in the book, a real summary or explanation of the arguments/examples? Thus far, we have nothing more than "there is such thing as a conspiracy theory of history, and this such book exists." I have a torrent of The Unseen Hand running, but it has basically no seeders, so it's going to take a while. Then reading it, and looking up the evidence it presents. If we're going to have a discussion, you are probably much better off posting a little more of the books content.



With that line, I look forward to reading the book; but you can't expect me to be anything but a sceptic until A) I've read the book, or B) Someone has presented me with some of the arguments/evidence contained in the book.

Furthermore, since your interest is to get the most people to read this book and recognize the examples and arguments contained therein as true, you are better off providing some of those arguments, because a person is more likely to go to the effort to buy and read a book if they have initial reason to believe the book is going to be interesting and provide new evidence and arguments. At the moment, I am moderately sceptical that the book won't be something I haven't read a dozen times before. David Icke was crazy, but at least his material represented a new progression of old ideas.

So yeah; I am interested, but give me some material to go on.

It's not my job to educate you kid. Remain ignorantly bliss for the rest of your life for all I care and read nothing but your one-sided history books that have been proven wrong time after time again in your pathetic schools.

[Ikeren]

How do you expect to inform people if you do not try?

And if you have no interest in inform people, why did you come here and post the vague description of appropriate book?

I have to say, I find your behaviour a little contradictory.

Edit: Hmm. Is the hypothesis that if you remain mysterious and refuse to give me material to go on, that I will become sufficiently intrigued to buy the book instead of waiting for this torrent to finish, and thus, fulfil the objective of informing people? An interesting tactic, but I think it would be more effective if you attempted to remain neutral in tone.

[IRS]

I'm right. You are wrong. I win.

[Hasbinbad]

I don't really want to start defending this conspiracy theory or that, that was never my cause and I will not champion it. However:

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Consistent lack of credible evidence with conspiracy theories I've been presented with thus far is good reason to be moderately sceptical of new ones

Moderately skeptical =/= throwing out all such theories out of hand without examining them.

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

especially new ones which are presented with not much evidence and lots of language like; "government wins, hello communism," and, "Fight the ocean, you will drown," oh, and here's a real gem; "...the rotting pig stew we're in..."

I have nfi what those are, and none of them are what I was referring to, and I am not going to bring any to your attention. They are out there, they are widely available, put your skeptic cap on and do some research with an open yet cautious mind.

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ockham's Razor is also a decent starting point.

The exact same principle is used as a major defense of many conspiracy theories. In neither case is it valid to use as evidence of anything.

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think examining conspiracy theories makes sense

You start out O.K., let's see where you go with it:

Originally Posted by Ikeren [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but many theories and proponents of theories do an exceptionally poor job of providing engaging arguments or evidence to people prior to the "buying the book" stage (which, because of the failure to provide engaging arguments or evidence, fewer people get to). Instead, vague generalizations and mockery of anyone who doesn't immediately say "Oh, look at your vague generalizations, this book seems great, I should go buy it" is generally met with mockery; which again, isn't conducive to getting people to engage with the theory.

For someone speaking out negatively about "vague generalizations," "lack of evidence," "lack of an engaging argument," and "meeting with mockery those who don't agree with you," you sure do have a knack for disengaging generilzed arguments that show an abundant lack of evidence to back up the vaguely mocking things you're saying about people who don't agree with you.

Honestly..
Some of the people you're talking about have very engaging arguments that engage people like me in very specific ways because they take into consideration the opposing views without mockery and summarily defeat them with facts and logic as evidence.

That YOU can't see it shows a lack of trying, because as I mentioned before, this information is superfluously available on the internet.