Iconophili's Great Big Thread of Conspiracies!

The resting place of threads that were very valid in 2004, but not so much in 2024. Basically this is a giant historical archive.


Locked
Ebor
Member
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat 30 October 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Ebor »

George Australia wrote:
Ebor wrote:

It may be overly optimistic to think that maybe a future lurker/reader will read the counter-posts and not just the rants, but one can hope.

Perhaps, but then the kind of people who believe the rants may be the kind of people who believe them no matter what you or anyone else says. And internet forums will always attract such people. The internet has always been a cheap way for such people to air their strange ideas.

You're right, of course. Sigh. And your last line has been exemplified by the phrase "Bullhorns for Everyone" :wink: Do they call the cones that amplify a person's voice a "bullhorn" in Australia?

Ebor

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

Ebor wrote:

So if he/she really is Artemon, the above post is a lie.

And if he isn't ARTEMON, then from a psychological perspective, it is still interesting how posters with similar ideas have similar posting styles- suggesting ideas born of poor education. Of course, English may not be their first language- but this still doesn't expain the same mistakes being made.

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

Ebor wrote:

Do they call the cones that amplify a person's voice a "bullhorn" in Australia?

We call them "megaphones".

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

Ebor
Member
Posts: 308
Joined: Sat 30 October 2004 3:30 pm
Location: Maryland

Post by Ebor »

That is an interesting point re psychology. I also remembered a rather entertaining site on "Flame Warriors" There are some common behaviours in posting and debating. Here are some that occurred to me:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... llcaps.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... styper.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/garble.htm
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/klaxon.htm

Thank you for "megaphone". They're called that here, also. It fun to learn what names are for things in other places. One of our children asked our neighbor from Australia what "cotton candy" is there and was delighted with the name "Fairy Floss".

Ebor

User avatar
CGW
Member
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue 18 November 2003 4:30 pm

Post by CGW »

ICONOPHILI wrote:

1. iT DOESN'T MATTER IF i MISPELL WORDS THAT DOESN'T MEAN i MUST BE LYING ABOUT WHAT i POST,

The world of statements isn't divided into just truth and lies. What I do observe is that your spelling and grammar for that matter have degraded considerably, suggesting that your emotions have run away with your mind.

2. Are you O.K. are you on planet Earth, You said my second point I said that Church Canon doen't matter?? YOUR misreading what I wrote, what I said was: "There is no were in the ANY of the CANONS that say a Cleric cannot tell the people something is wrong with the STATE NO WHERE!"

It doesn't matter whether the canons allow clerics to speak on secular matters. The point-- which you are trying to evade-- is that one wouldn't ordinarily expect a cleric to be authoritative outside the bounds of his own religion. If your director is spending a lot of time talking about 9/11 conspiracies and the illuminati and that sort of thing, it's time you either called a halt to it or found yourself someone better. Even if the claims of the conspiracy websites were true (which they aren't), you personally can't do a thing about them. So why get wound up? Go worry about your own soul.

And while I'm at it: you're falling into the very common heresy of believing in evil but not in sin. By that I mean that you seem to be operating from the belief that men do evil strictly out of malice, and forget that they often do ill believing it to be good.

User avatar
George Australia
Sr Member
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat 17 January 2004 9:26 am
Location: Down Under (Australia, not Hades)

Post by George Australia »

Orthodox6 wrote:

Oh my. There is no telling WHOM circumstances may impel me to defend!. . . .

не умею как ПОГОВОРИТЬ РУССКОГО, однако, если я должны был обсудить ВЕЩИ на РУССКОМ ФОРУМЕ, то я НЕ ИСПОЛЬЗОВАЛ БЫ ПРОПИСНОЙ БУКВЫ неуместно.
I do not know how to SPEAK RUSSIAN, however, if I were to discuss THINGS on a RUSSIAN FORUM, I would NOT USE CAPITAL LETTERS inappropriately.
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warrio ... llcaps.htm

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

ICONOPHILI
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon 28 November 2005 2:52 am

Post by ICONOPHILI »

I'm an American.

Your not Hurting my feelings, don't worry.
O-6[/quote]

Locked