Debate : 15614


Off-Topic / Debate / 15614

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) For one semester in 1988, I was playing with being a criminal justice major. It ended up being really dull, so I moved on to several other major fields. But in that process I determined that there are cops who know what's going on and why (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Dave Schuler

(...) As further clarification, it might be useful to distinguish between the Foucault's-Pendulum-style Conspiracies and simple two-guys-working-together conspracies. The former generally cannot exist in its described form, since it demands far too (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) not (...) [snip] (...) In our nation (and every nation?) those with the power of wealth have a large amount of power over the laws of the land. They wield this power to assure that they keep their wealth. What degree of conspiracy is going on? (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Dave Schuler

(...) In what way are you asking? Do I think that a number of corporations are working independently, but simultaneously, to further their own wealth? Certainly, and the factions of each company are likely "conspiring" to achieve that end. Are (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —John DiRienzo

(...) Like any self-respecting and haughty high-born conspirator, I much prefer the term "great unwashed" to "the sheep." So let's go with that please. (...) Actually, I think existence of such is mandatory, but you say unlikely, how fascinating. (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Can we go with hoi polloi? (...) That *is* fascinating--on what is that belief based? And where the heck have you been? I haven't seen you on OT.Debate in like a year?! Dave! (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —David Koudys

(...) Baaa!! (...) I like what CJ Creig said in WW once, and can't remember exact wording but here's paraphrased... "I take comfort in the fact that once 2 or more people know something, it's impossible to keep it a secret for an extended period of (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hmm... Alanis Morisette => Some Retail Saint Maybe she's part of the plot to rework the commerce system with all that crazy monopoly money. Of course, Alanis Morisette also => Smartie Toenails. Hmm... And, now that I think of it, "Dave Thomas (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Maybe not. If you want to see the best the world of conspiracy theory has to offer, a good start is: (URL) Everything from alien intervention to New World Order Quadrant Sign Code! Fun for all! (The rest of the site is a hoot, too.) (22 years ago, 27-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —John DiRienzo

(...) I think that should be ammended to government can't be any smarter than the dumbest person (or sheep if you prefer) you let participate (vote) in it, but that doesn't sound very supportive of democracy, does it? However, it does explain a lot. (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?)) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) exploit (...) I'm not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but just in case... In this segment of my note, the sheep were not the conspiracy nuts, they were the masses of people who, not knowing how to take advantage of the system (and (...) (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: The Sheep (was: An armed society...(what if?)) —Dave Schuler

(...) Yeah, it was intended as more tongue in cheek than it came across--I was in part alluding to my recent calls for other additions to the Godwin list. "Petty and annoying" was a poor word choice... Dave! (22 years ago, 26-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) The Templars, indeed. It was the Hospitalars, but the money was provided by the Gnomes of Zurich. Fnord. (...) To actually address Chris' question back up at the top: as few as two. But conspiracy is usually defined as having some illegal (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Christopher L. Weeks

(...) I'm not convinced that the distinction between the two is as clear as our language makes it seem. And anyway, my personal (patently predjudiced) experience suggests that those drawn into law enforcement tend to occupy both niches. (...) I (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed gathering...?!? —Bruce Schlickbernd

(...) Wargamers do not exist in the current version of the game, so I can pencil in whatever I want. :-) (...) At the time I originally read this, no. We get back from the Dominican Republic (arrrr, I gotta be finding the maritime museums thar) the (...) (22 years ago, 28-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Richard Marchetti

(...) Dave! Is this the semantic game AGAIN?! Man, you love to talk about words... Maybe we just need another word for what happens -- maybe the word "conspiracy" is insufficient to describe observed phenomena. I keep thinking about chaos theory, (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: An armed society...(what if?) —Dave Schuler

(...) Sorry, occupational hazard (English major)... The killer is that, the word does have an unfortunate overlap into two related but distinct applications, so it's tough to keep them separate. (...) I'll buy that. (...) I thought they bumped the (...) (22 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)