I'm a skeptic, but I feel no need to be offended, angered, or hostile when these predictions arise, because without proof one way or another (which
will usually in such cases be quickly forthcoming,) I can't make any assertions in either direction. So I simply state my thoughts on them, say
anything is possible but it seems improbable (but that I could be wrong,) and then wait and see what happens. People assume false beliefs all the
time. People make mistakes all the time. It's how people learn. We've all believed things - even fervently - that we later discovered were untrue,
even if it hasn't been since childhood.
So, if nothing happens (which seems likely, but who can say with certainty?) it's no reason for me to feel angry at OP or at the fact that people make
such predictions, provided they can learn from them when and if they're wrong. What does
worry me and make me concerned, however, is this
statement by the OP (and others like it by other people making predictions):
HOWEVER, I cannot exclude the possibility that highly paid investment bankers at Goldman Sachs' have read my posts and decided it would be a funny
joke to throw 60 million dollars at the stock market to manipulate the Dow to reach's it's high. So you people have to decide for yourself based on
these odds what chance you want to take, knowing that such a possibility exists.
This suggests a belief that if nothing happens, it doesn't mean there's no conspiracy and no correlation. Instead, to OP it means someone singled him
out and played a dirty joke on him; someone in power and who has influence; someone incredibly busy and in the echelons of power saw his posts and
singled this prediction among all others out in order to make it seem feasible. That worries me because - in my humble opinion, with no offense to OP
intended - it seems like fallacious reasoning.
Consider, OP: you feel strongly enough that a major event is going to occurr that you were in tears, and felt compelled to warn everyone about it. If
nothing happens, that means that conviction, feeling, belief - whatever you choose to call it - was in error. That's okay. We all make mistakes. But
instead of considering the possibility that this means it's erroneous in its entirety and that this may all simply be coincidence, you are leaping to
the conclusion that it means they're playing you somehow? Why is that the alternative? Why can't the alternative simply be that this was a coincidence
- a pattern you noticed and hypothesized a correlation with respect to, that turned out to be erroneous in the end?
I'm not saying that is or has to be the case. But isn't it at least as possible - if not more so - than a conspiracy to make your posts/hypotheses
seem plausible? Because if you take the tact that if the main prediction doesn't happen, then something else out of the ordinary must
on, you're ignoring the possibility of the mundane. You're restricting your world view to the fantastical - which doesn't mean you have
wrong - but you must at least consider other possibilities in my opinion. Especially if you're asking the rest of us on the more skeptical side of
things to consider the possibilities you
Just my two cents. No disrespect is intended or implied. Peace.
edit on 4/22/2011 by AceWombat04 because: Typo and clarification