Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 22:10:31 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1754 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> > As further clarification, it might be useful to distinguish between the
> > Foucault's-Pendulum-style Conspiracies and simple two-guys-working-together
> > conspracies. <Snip>
> > The essential difference relates to the level of organization and the
> > breadth of the enterprise in question. I would suggest that disparate
> > factions working toward a similar goal do not constitute a Conspiracy; some
> > deliberate coordination between them is fundamental.
>
> Is this the semantic game AGAIN?! Man, you love to talk about words...
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.
> That's the small, mobile, highly effective, tiny-stepped strategy that can
> describe everything from evolution to the existence of the Catholic faith.
> Those baby steps will take you all the way -- even if the single actors
> didn't have a concerted goal in mind.
>
> It doesn't have to fit the description of a "conspiracy" per se, but one can
> see that the end results can easily be the same.
I'll buy that.
> Anyway, if conspiracies don't exist -- why is it so important to keep
> everything the govt. knows about the assassination of JFK under wraps until
> sometime approx. around the year 2020? What is being protected? Who is
> being protected? I certainly doubt that it is the interests of the people...
I thought they bumped the date even farther back than that. I don't doubt
a conspiracy there, as I tried to indicate, but I'm trying to distinguish
between a group of Supreme Secret Masters and a bunch of Little Masters.
The end result is the same in many cases, true, but the way I think we might
combat each kind of "conspiracy" is different.
> So I don't care what
> Tri-lateral, Warburg, Rothschilds, Skull and X-Bones, Cthulhu zombies may or
> may not be involved -- the basics facts are such that I know we are doing
> something different than what was stipulated in the Constitution. That is
> enough for me to recognize a problem -- it doesn't matter how we got here.
I wonder, though, if it matters in terms of solving the problem? If ten
companies illegally steer things to their own benefit but act independently
of each other, I think the steps necessary to correct/prevent that sort of
thing would be different from the course we'd have to follow if ten
companies had worked illegally in concert to engineer the same result.
> Don't get caught up in arguing over the details if you can see that the big
> picture is still there.
Heh. I'm not trying to be deliberately fastidious about the wording, but
I really do perceive a difference. I suppose I can see that the big picture
is still there, but it's not the same big picture that others see.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) 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, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
