Top 10 Personality Traits of a CTer

I think that "CTers" could just as easily be replaced by "ICers" or the Ideologically Challenged.

I side with DK and loam. Huge brush strokes!!! and the troll alert was apropos!

Originally posted by whaaa
I think that "CTers" could just as easily be replaced by "ICers" or the Ideologically Challenged.

I side with DK and loam. Huge brush strokes!!! and the troll alert was apropos!

Which is it...You're just not capable or willing to have a discussion on the article?
None of it is true of any CTer? Not all, but at least one or two? Really?

Sounds like you're a candidate for:

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

Or a troll.

Once again, I am not trying to offend or ridicule with this post. I am very sorry if that is the case. I believe you will agree with me that some CTers fit at least a couple of these traits.

awww, you too should go burn some CT'er strawmen after work and do some more backslapping. Yep were all a bunch of argumentative fools in tin hats from pluto. You do realize that all "10 points" point right back at the debunkers in equal force, don't you? How else do we get threads that reach 20 pages without addressing the original post, only dogging on the author of the thread. Here, I'll make you happy.... BAAAH, baaAAHH, now run along little sheep, the dogs are coming. There thats no fun is it? Do you really, REALLY want to understand us or make fun of us? I think that much is obvious...de de DEE!!

My father used to say: "No thing is useless - it can still serve as a bad example."

That's valid for KIAs post: use it as a check list, or a way mark, if you will. As long as you don't find a description of yourself or your theory in it, you're still sane and on the right track, no need to worry, truth lies ahead.

I sometimes find myself wondering whether I'm paranoid, closeminded and only see what I want to see in order to strengthen my world view. But all that high quality research and deep thoughts and sometimes hard evidence here on ATS convince me that I can't rely on MSM or our governments to shape my reality :-)

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
awww, you too should go burn some CT'er strawmen after work and do some more backslapping. Yep were all a bunch of argumentative fools in tin hats from pluto. You do realize that all "10 points" point right back at the debunkers in equal force, don't you? How else do we get threads that reach 20 pages without addressing the original post, only dogging on the author of the thread. Here, I'll make you happy.... BAAAH, baaAAHH, now run along little sheep, the dogs are coming. There thats no fun is it? Do you really, REALLY want to understand us or make fun of us? I think that much is obvious...de de DEE!!

Ahh, I see. No Horseman, I am not attempting to make fun of anyone. No matter how many times you all try to read my politics, or accuse me of this and that, you are all going to be wrong. You don't know where my politics lay, nor whether I'm a debunker or govt agent or have my own tin hat!

I'm really trying to understand this way of thinking. So far, only two posters have had the balls to have a reasonable conversation with me. And for that, I'm very appreciative. As for you...Same question. Are you just unwilling or incapable of having this discussion. I'm not saying those who disagree (debunkers) are correct either. I just simply do not know. I find this website and the posters on it fascinating.
Unfortunately you're not one of them. Go back to the beginning and figure out which trait belongs to you. You are making the point of the article unfortunately.
Your characterization of my intentions to make fun of you are not true at all. Too bad you feel that way, that I'm making fun of you. Now run along to mama.

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Ahh, I see. No Horseman, I am not attempting to make fun of anyone. No matter how many times you all try to read my politics, or accuse me of this and that, you are all going to be wrong. You don't know where my politics lay, nor whether I'm a debunker or govt agent or have my own tin hat!

I'm really trying to understand this way of thinking.

I understood this early on.

Maybe others should re-read this thread.

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Now run along to mama.

A word of advice... try not to chase poor behavior with a bit of your own.

the grammar in the initial post implicating conspiracy theorists was absolutely terrible. i figure, if you're going to go out of your way and write a long work lumping every conspiracy theorist into one category, at least spell check the thing. whoever wrote that needs to know my grammar was far superior to that when i was in 6th grade. far superior.

the easiest way to discredit something is to analyze is grammatical content. if you're going to try and make an intelligent point implicating someone as being unintelligent, at least use proper grammar.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by ChocoTaco369]

It was a subtle form of flattery
I wonder if he would do better to rename the thread to include CT'ers and Debunkers because if not this is clearly a one sided sideswipe and not appreciated on a CONSPIRACY site. What sort of response would I get if I posted on a Mechanics website and started a thread about greasmonkeys and creepercrawlers...the same if not worse than what he has recieved. Keep the advice.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
the easiest way to discredit something is to analyze is grammatical content.

Actually, if an idea is sufficiently conveyed, I think the grammar is completely irrelevant. The absence of that particular skill has nothing to do with credibility of an argument or the intelligence of a poster.

In fact, I'd call your view on the matter the laziest way to address an argument I've seen admitted to in a long time.



[edit on 3-10-2006 by loam]

Originally posted by Fifth Horseman
...What sort of response would I get if I posted on a Mechanics website and started a thread about greasmonkeys and creepercrawlers...

I think that's a sound point.

Sigh.
Irony - A person who is consumed with the desire to discredit so called CT's chooses a random, vague list of characteristics that all CT's supposedly share (although you could pretty much label any group of people with similar interests with this list) and then turn around and try to prove his point on a CT site no less! Agreed that there are many crackpot ideas out there, however this "list" could be used to describe anyone including the people who are against the CT's theories.

1- Incapacity to self-criticism
2- Incapacity to question or criticize "official" or dominant perspective of a problem or event. Absorbtion of authorities conclusions or interpretation of facts without restraint
3- Baming on the ones in the weakest position, while defending the most socially or politically empowered
4- Herd mentality
5- Reliance on prominent figures of authority for moral judgement
6- Fear towards any fringe, marginal idea or person that's socially stigmatized as such
7- Valuing easy conclusions that does'nt demand much thinking or debating effort
8- Belief in anything, rational of not, as long as it's enforced through pressure or by political status
9- Obsession with submitting to codes of conformity
10- Belief in the "Law" and the necessity to follow it whatever the cost, and no abstraction of personal rational and ethical towards it. "Is this okay to do that?" question is invalid.

[edit on 3/10/06 by Echtelion]

the grammar in the initial post implicating conspiracy theorists was absolutely terrible. i figure, if you're going to go out of your way and write a long work lumping every conspiracy theorist into one category, at least spell check the thing. whoever wrote that needs to know my grammar was far superior to that when i was in 6th grade. far superior.

Guess you spent a lot of time on grammar, and not a lot of time on capitalisation, in 6th grade?

Look, I hate to say this, but some of the posts on this thread really do reaffirm the generalisations in the original post. There is a saying I always remember learning as a kid when I couldn't understand why someone thought something about me. The saying was "Perception is reality". Even if you think there is no foundation to the generalised CT characteristics, someone at least perceives that the characteristics are common within the broader group of CTers. Rather than attacking someone for bringing this up, maybe more time should be spent looking at things from the opposite point of view. And also take into account that it is a generalisation, and not a specific dig at individuals and ATS.

I agree with SO. I've had a look at other CT websites (even though I'm not a CTer myself, more an aircraft kind of guy), and I think the statement that ATS provides a more measured debate is correct. But this is mainly because opposite points of view exist on this board. And this should be encouraged, because if theories stand up against solid, well researched opposition, their legitimacy is strengthened. A website where everyone slaps you on the back and agrees with your theory has no legitimacy in my eyes at all. So rather than attacking people like KIA, you should be embracing them. It is they that make ATS better than the others.

[edit on 3-10-2006 by Willard856]

The problem with this thread is that a person could be a "CT" on one issue and a skeptic on another. Seriously though, you'll never get any reasonable level of dialogue with a topic that immeadiatly offends, just a big name calling war.

TOP 10 personality traits of people who like to analyze other people instead of contributing to debates pertaining to the scope and purpose of the site

1. Make top 10 lists that attack the scope and purpose of the site and then deny it is personal
2. anybody that tries to analyze them is wrong. No exceptions
3. Pigeonhole at will
4. Loneliness and the need to assault people with interests
5. Poor grammer Thought we could all use that
6. make broad sweeping statements that are akin to prejudism
7. make me waste my time coming up with 3 more
8. bring out the worst in people in no time
9. misery loves company
10. call themselves KNOW IT ALL and then refuse to Deny Ignorance.

What I don't get is the use of the word 'CTer' - it's not even a word! It has a mangled-up suffix on the end, making anyone with a conspiracy tale a 911er, a UFOer, a CTer.. like it intentionally has a demeaning tone to it the moment you put the -er suffix on there.

I want to ask Knowitall - are there any conspiracies you actually wholeheartedly believe in? Or do you think it really is an apple-pie world out there with no secrets, no shocks, no surprises, that you really do in fact, 'know it all'? That you indeed, know, all there is to be known?

Hey Riot,
Personally I am a CT'er. I use it simply to avoid typing out Conspiracy theorist. Kind of like saying 'doc' instead of medical practitioner. I get what you are saying however and maybe I am inadvertantly promoting its use. Sorry for being a lazy typist everybody. I use my fingers welding all day long and they get tired

Go Icke

Which is why I tend to play the part of the dick, people run with thories where they say an official story is false but fail to evaluate their own stories with the same standards. And God forbid you say they are wrong, then that means you're a government dog who won't open his or her eyes.

I love conspiracy theories, but they should never be taken as fact unless proven as such by the same standards that the official stories are held to.

Actually, those traits you posted are the common opinion ABOUT conspiracy theorists, not the way they are in actuality. You are always going to have groups of "wanna-be" CTers that don't really know anything and defend their side with little to nothing intelligent. However, most real and serious conspiracy theorists will listen to reason, and I know that at least in my case, I WILL listen to both sides of the story, and after I feel I have a valid hold on both sides of the topic, I will make my own conclusion as to what I believe.

But one other thing that you have to understand is, conspiracies don't always have the amount of evidence as the skeptics are armed with, because the skeptics are usually given their "factual evidence" by the very people that CTers would call the conspirators.

And in some cases, the CTers actually have more evidence than the other side, but are ignored and discredited by people with 'more power' than themselves.

A complicated world is the world of conspiracies.

I wasnt going to comment but when I went back to the home page and looked at the title again. The reason I read this post was because from the title, I knew it was you KnowItAll. You were the first one I have seen use the term CTer and you use it in a very deragatory tone. Loam was being nice to you because he