Originally posted by Viendin
10th post from the bottom, page two of this thread. You never replied to it, or even commented on it.
Okay, okay. Viendin, here's a quote from Thomas Jefferson. I want you to read it closely:
"The man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to the truth than
he whose mind is filled with falsehood and errors. It is a melancholy truth that a surpression of the press could not more completely deprive the
nation of its benefits than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood" -- Thomas Jefferson
...Do you get what Tom is saying about newspapers (the main media of his day)? He's saying, they're so full of lies, that it's almost not worth
. That's my point. If you want to abandon the Internet to prostitution of falsehood, then go for it. You'll not be alone, I'm
Anyway, I will respond to your first post:
As I do keep saying, before September 11th he was talking about missing WMD's and people's repealed rights. He was talking about the
unification of the EU into something far more wholly realised, about China being a major superpower, about Russia moving backwards in
America-friendliness. About a new major instability in the Middle East that America's involvement in would show a horrific foreign policy adopted by
America, and sow the seeds of the civil war.
It is clear that whomever authored the JT myth was clever. That's not in question. They correctly chose several elements that seem to be prophetic.
It is a well crafted meme.
WMDS: Guessing that nonexistent WMDs would be used as a pretext for Iraq War II was not excessively difficult. It was known by many people that Iraq
had abandoned its WMD programs while it was simultaneously known that WMDs would be the pretext for the next invasion. This was known before 2001.
It's obvious to any strategic mind that WMDs are the only big enough pretext to go back into Iraq, which any idiot could have guessed is what
BushCo would do.
The JT author guessed an obvious plan.
I am wondering if you are one of those people who thinks history happens by accident. Do you think Iraq and the WMD excuse just sort of happened?
That it wasn't planned ahead of time? If so, you might want to spend some time looking at actual conspiracies rather than fabricated hoaxes.
EU/China/Russia/MidEast: Guessing that the EU would come together is not tough. They'd wanted a competetive oil currency for years. China and
Russia are still communist countries and only fools would expect them to be anything except the enemies of the US. Did you believe Russia was our
friend? Sorry if so. I could see how you'd elevate JT's story if you thought Russia were our buddies.
The WMD's were missing - and those words didn't even exist in pre-9/11 America.
I disagree. Please don't make me find pre-2001 ref's to the term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' because I don't feel like it. They exist. The
term WMD was used prior to the JT story. Again, if you think otherwise then I could see how you'd give the JT author credit for inventing it.
Again, like I said, there really was only one plan for going back into Iraq and that was the shadow of WMDs, and the JT author guessed right. It
wasn't tough, really.
A lot of people are very unhappy, and the world isn't a very stable thing right now.
So the future was going to be rosy after 2001, and the JT author was an oracle because they figured out things might become much worse, globally? Uh,
there are only a few thousand books which spell a change of world affairs when 2K rolled up. Where were you? Little thing called Y2K had everyone
freaked out. For the JT author to predict doom circa 2005 wasn't a tough one. I don't know ANYBODY who thought 2K would mean a better world. Most
of my informed friends realized things would get bad. Does that make us time travellers?
Now, all that is interesting coincidence, and that's all. I'm just saying that regardless of how 'wrong' Titor's been regarding specifically
Waco-like events, and regardless of how many little holes you poke in his story, or how many hater's clubs you start, he's made his mark, and he's
been remarkably correct about what's happened to us so far.
Remarkably correct. Uh huh. Yeah.
Even if he's wrong, which he could (and likely will) be, then the story will be known as false, and remembered with interest as something to have
'happened on the early internet' that was never disproven over 5 years until the actual prophecies became undoubtedly incorrect. At that point,
people could study this.
Sure, it could happen that way, but the JT author said that Y2K didn't happen in his timeline, so the JT story will surely linger for several years
due to this litttle twist. Since Y2K didn't happen for us, that means JT might still be right in a couple years, eh? Our timeline is different from
JT's as has been mentioned by Titorites in other threads.
So the anti-American JT story will continue to be fed into people's heads and discussion of civil war will continue.
And for all of it, I don't care. But there's still a minute possibility that this story is real, and until you present some piece of rock solid
proof, I'm not going to let you kill it. Regardless of whether I like it (I don't want to die) I won't see it removed simply because you don't.
Oh I cannot kill it. Memes like JT will always find fertile brain matter in which to germinate.
You want the JT story to be true for what reason, exactly?
Now here's your recent post:
You're looking at this as a story, I'm looking at this as a possibility. And I mean, hey, that's okay, right? To each their own. But there's a
problem with it.
If I walk up to you, and tell you "A car just crashed, and a person died because of it." Then you have no real choice but to accept to truth. You
can not look at me and say "I do not like a world where people die. This is a bad idea. The car didn't crash, people didn't die. You're lying,
because I don't want people to die." - That just isn't the way it works.
If I walk up to you, and say "So what if a car crashed and a person died because of it?" Then you have the ability to say "I don't want the car to
crash, it's a bad idea. I'm not participating in this."
Poor analogy. A car accident is minor. Let's alter it a bit, okay? Suppose you come to me and said, "Peeps, the only hope in our future is Russia
hitting the US with nukes. Trust me on this." ...Then we'd be closer to reality. Now what is my choice? To believe you or not? If I believe,
then I accept a horrible future based on your story. If I disbelieve, I lose nothing, and I gain my bright future back.
When you look at "The Whole John Titor Thing" and immediately dismiss it as an obvious construction, which it may well be, but, as I feel I've
shown to a pretty solid degree, isn't guaranteed to be, you overlook dealing with the consequences, and jump to mocking the plot.
The consequences? No, I'm dealing with those. I believe nuke war to be highly probable in my lifetime. I will not latch onto the JT story just
because it might give me a little more ammo to scare people into stocking food or digging a shelter. I'll scare people with facts or theories based
in reality, but putting your weight behind this JT thing just because it might get people motivated, well that's just stupid.
You say things like "I don't like the idea of a revolution occuring" - well, if it's a hypothetical construction, you have every right to feel
that way, but it isn't necessarily. If it's the actual truth, then you can not deny it because it doesn't sit well with you. If it actually
happens, then you can not say that it is poorly thought out, because it's the truth.
Keep waiting, and when civil war comes, I'll apologize to you, okay? Not that it'll do us much good then, I wager.
You attack the sense of the JT events/claims, but you can only really do this if they are false. You can not prove something is false by assuming it
is false. You must assume it is true and wait for something to prove it cannot be.
No, that's stupid. --Believe something while waiting for the proof? Did you read what you just wrote?
You can hate it, and loathe what it says, and groan at the message it contains, and seethe over the people who are 'infected' by it, but if it's
the real truth, then you're the one standing in the way.
Don't forget: while it hasn't been proven true, it hasn't been proven false, so we shouldn't take sides and polarise yet. I hope you don't just
ignore this post too.
How can I be standing in the way of "real truth" when that real truth says our only hope is to be bombed by the Soviets?
Vienden, my initial post says that JT was a jerk. I didn't try to debunk the JT story as such, I tried to expose the motivation of the writer. So
why don't YOU respond to MY post, that is to say, the first one. Specifically, if JT is real, why aren't you angry at him for not telling us how to
avoid our own doom?
[edit on 4-1-2006 by smallpeeps]