It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
do you consider "hostility" to be a measure of insanity?
reply to post by St0rD
That's right. The article in the OP is about a study and it complete distorts what the study found.
Why did you say that the article "complete distorts"
Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.
It seems clear to me that the author validates that point.
Have I failed to respond to what you have said or do you just discount what I have said because it doesn't fit your worldview?
It just feel like I'm only talking to myself in the end.
I've come to really laugh at people who try to marginalize any doubt of an official story by saying something like "oh so it's a conspiracy huh?" The hilarious part is that yes, nearly every major event in history WAS a "conspiracy" by VERY DEFINITION because the word only means that more than one person worked together on it.
Tell me, honestly here now; what major event in history that has the slightest bit of disagreement over what really happened, did NOT involve 2 or more people???
I have a very small company building and selling mostly 1 product and still to get anything done requires the efforts of at least about 6people on any given week...
This is PRECISELY why the myth of the 'lone gunman' is all the more laughable when it comes to anything other than hackjob amateur hour crap.
In the common vernacular "conspiracy theory" has come to mean any idea that deviates from the MSM. LOL keep on drinkin that kool-aid...
reply to post by Rosinitiate
Your in-depth opinionated analysis of the minutiae of my post is noted. Still off-topic, but noted.
I wish I could relate how blindingly uninterested I am in your efforts to walk the edge of insult in your post. I'm sure that brings you some sort of personal joy ... but really only serves to make your post look asinine.
You can't speak for the poster to whom I responded.
They made a general post, I made a specific reply. You inserted yourself because you seem to conceive that the pedantic desultory tone in your posts makes you a "good citizen" in some way. That hasn't offended me, but I'm sure the conversation could have done without such trivia.
The real point here is that there are not only "two types" of people who correspond about these topics, either here at ATS or on the wider internet. Yet, that was the proposal of the original article and even when that was clearly demonstrated as a sham ... the conversation went on here with various axe-grinding and other egoic showboating.
We either deal with matters as consistently and rationally as we are able, or we don't.
We either do our best to find the most reliable facts regarding a topic, or we don't.
We either use critical thinking and life experiences to winnow the spare grain from the abundant chaff, or we don't.
It's not a "new study", it's from last year and I would hardly call the article linked in the OP unbiased:
According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.
Here's what Mike Wood, one of the authors of the actual study, says about the article's twisting of the facts.
In this case, of course, the paper says nothing of the sort and the article’s conclusions are based on misrepresentations of several critical findings.
In writing this Barrett did not realise that these only include persuasive comments – comments that were written with the apparent intent to change somebody’s mind about the cause of 9/11. It doesn’t include comments that, for instance, take the conventional explanation for granted and just talk about something else; that complain about someone else’s post; that simply insult someone; and so on. So it’s totally baseless to conclude that conspiracist comments outnumber conventionalist comments – I did the data collection for this study and am positive that this is not the case. Probably it’s true of a few articles, but certainly not in general
edit on 2/8/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)
Phage you are exactly what the OP is talking about. We are the sane ones.. Not you. Then again.. So how much are you being paid to post here?
Firepistonedit on 8-2-2014 by FirePiston because: (no reason given)
reply to post by St0rD
They will say to themselves 'Who should I believe, 'kids' on the internet, or government officials?'.
How sad is it that I would be more inclined to believe a "kid" on the internet before pretty much anything my government tells me?
edit on 8-2-2014 by Akragon because: (no reason given)