[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=CONCHO]As with the present, I don’t see conspiracy, I just see idiocy and greed.

If more than one person is involved, if the parties plan and agree to a course of action, it is a conspiracy. Look up the word. con for together/with, spire, from respire, “to breathe.” It basically means, “to breath the same air.”

The US media has very effectively conditioned the public to laugh at or dismiss anything that the word “conspiracy” is attached to. If conspiracies don’t exist, then neither does the mafia, the drug cartels, etc…[/quote]

So, let me get this straight… The media are conspiring to make us dismiss conspiracies.
That’s so laughable, Ha Ha Ha…
d’oh !

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=CONCHO]As with the present, I don’t see conspiracy, I just see idiocy and greed.

If more than one person is involved, if the parties plan and agree to a course of action, it is a conspiracy. Look up the word. con for together/with, spire, from respire, “to breathe.” It basically means, “to breath the same air.”

The US media has very effectively conditioned the public to laugh at or dismiss anything that the word “conspiracy” is attached to. If conspiracies don’t exist, then neither does the mafia, the drug cartels, etc…[/quote]

So, let me get this straight… The media are conspiring to make us dismiss conspiracies.
That’s so laughable, Ha Ha Ha…
d’oh !

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I don’t have time to write a response to this very interesting topic, so this is a post to tell people that I would have a very well-thought out reponse, if only I had the time two do so, but I don’t and I have a PhD too so don’t think I am stupid or something, so if I had more time I would read the 237 word (or so) post further up that has no paragraph breaks and try to decipher something that is debatable in it because surely there is something to it that I could either agree with or disagree with and provide links to supporting third party opinions or facts to back up my position as to whether or not the post has merit.[/quote]
I
don’t
know
how
to
highlight
parts
of
quotes
so
that
is
why
it
reads
like
a
run
on
sentence.
But,
is
that
the
only
response
you
have
to
the
topic?
You
point
out
typos
as
intelligent
responses?
Same
stupid
method
as
Allen
from
Fallbrook
and
davelj.
Why
don’t
you
get
back
to
the
topic?[/quote]

I don’t know what you are talking about. I was not pointing out any typos, simply just typing what came to mind after reading through (well, skimming through) this thread. I made a post about … well… about posting nothing, but you still seemed to find fault with it and put me into a category of people who according to you use “stupid methods.” As far as I can tell the topic here is how people respond to other people on this blog, their qualifications and degrees and their personal beliefs on how one should or should not respond to post with or without cogent thought. In that vein I am simply trying to post thoughts in those same areas and trying to fit in with this thread since it is the hottest thread on the board the last couple of days.

Anyway, I think the motivation for creating a conspiracy that is ultamately hatched long after you are dead (like the Federal Reserve in 1913) is so that you can create mystery and aura about yourself and give nutty authors stuff to write about.

In that vein, so far I have no offers from anyone to join my club in which club members will conspire to rule the universe. The plan will take some time and the expected fruition will be in 2108 or 2109.
We lay the ground work now to destroy the economy of the entire universe (not just Earth, we have to think big here because it’s in the future), while enriching our members. The plan will take some time to hatch, but in the end our members will rule the financial universe. If all goes well the plan will run its course by 2107 or 2109 at the latest.
Who’s with me ?[/quote]
And I’m sure that your sarcasm isn’t intended either. It does contribute to the original topic of this thread doesn’t it? THIS IS A BLOG, NOT A PUBLISHED PAPER.I’m not the one who said that the central banking is a conspiracy. Just wanted to get others opinion on what griffin said. But, a lot of you folks like to throw bombs instead of debating what griffin said. I applaud allen for being willing to take the subject at hand to heart and be willing to further study it. He is the only one on this entire thread that seems to be willing to do that. By the way, your nick name is “creep who left”. congrats![/quote]

I came in the middle of the thread and was reponding to the repsonses to the original post. This is a blog and the “conversation” is not static, so sometimes it’s OK to respond to the responses and not to the original post. Much like your responses about not wanting to be associated with George Soros have nothing to do with the original post, but are simply responses to other postings after the original post. And as for my sarcasm, I cannot help it. I am not capable of making a point without the use of sarcasm (well, except for the point being made in the preceding statement about my need to use sarcasm).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I don’t have time to write a response to this very interesting topic, so this is a post to tell people that I would have a very well-thought out reponse, if only I had the time two do so, but I don’t and I have a PhD too so don’t think I am stupid or something, so if I had more time I would read the 237 word (or so) post further up that has no paragraph breaks and try to decipher something that is debatable in it because surely there is something to it that I could either agree with or disagree with and provide links to supporting third party opinions or facts to back up my position as to whether or not the post has merit.[/quote]
I
don’t
know
how
to
highlight
parts
of
quotes
so
that
is
why
it
reads
like
a
run
on
sentence.
But,
is
that
the
only
response
you
have
to
the
topic?
You
point
out
typos
as
intelligent
responses?
Same
stupid
method
as
Allen
from
Fallbrook
and
davelj.
Why
don’t
you
get
back
to
the
topic?[/quote]

I don’t know what you are talking about. I was not pointing out any typos, simply just typing what came to mind after reading through (well, skimming through) this thread. I made a post about … well… about posting nothing, but you still seemed to find fault with it and put me into a category of people who according to you use “stupid methods.” As far as I can tell the topic here is how people respond to other people on this blog, their qualifications and degrees and their personal beliefs on how one should or should not respond to post with or without cogent thought. In that vein I am simply trying to post thoughts in those same areas and trying to fit in with this thread since it is the hottest thread on the board the last couple of days.

Anyway, I think the motivation for creating a conspiracy that is ultamately hatched long after you are dead (like the Federal Reserve in 1913) is so that you can create mystery and aura about yourself and give nutty authors stuff to write about.

In that vein, so far I have no offers from anyone to join my club in which club members will conspire to rule the universe. The plan will take some time and the expected fruition will be in 2108 or 2109.
We lay the ground work now to destroy the economy of the entire universe (not just Earth, we have to think big here because it’s in the future), while enriching our members. The plan will take some time to hatch, but in the end our members will rule the financial universe. If all goes well the plan will run its course by 2107 or 2109 at the latest.
Who’s with me ?[/quote]
And I’m sure that your sarcasm isn’t intended either. It does contribute to the original topic of this thread doesn’t it? THIS IS A BLOG, NOT A PUBLISHED PAPER.I’m not the one who said that the central banking is a conspiracy. Just wanted to get others opinion on what griffin said. But, a lot of you folks like to throw bombs instead of debating what griffin said. I applaud allen for being willing to take the subject at hand to heart and be willing to further study it. He is the only one on this entire thread that seems to be willing to do that. By the way, your nick name is “creep who left”. congrats![/quote]

I came in the middle of the thread and was reponding to the repsonses to the original post. This is a blog and the “conversation” is not static, so sometimes it’s OK to respond to the responses and not to the original post. Much like your responses about not wanting to be associated with George Soros have nothing to do with the original post, but are simply responses to other postings after the original post. And as for my sarcasm, I cannot help it. I am not capable of making a point without the use of sarcasm (well, except for the point being made in the preceding statement about my need to use sarcasm).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I don’t have time to write a response to this very interesting topic, so this is a post to tell people that I would have a very well-thought out reponse, if only I had the time two do so, but I don’t and I have a PhD too so don’t think I am stupid or something, so if I had more time I would read the 237 word (or so) post further up that has no paragraph breaks and try to decipher something that is debatable in it because surely there is something to it that I could either agree with or disagree with and provide links to supporting third party opinions or facts to back up my position as to whether or not the post has merit.[/quote]
I
don’t
know
how
to
highlight
parts
of
quotes
so
that
is
why
it
reads
like
a
run
on
sentence.
But,
is
that
the
only
response
you
have
to
the
topic?
You
point
out
typos
as
intelligent
responses?
Same
stupid
method
as
Allen
from
Fallbrook
and
davelj.
Why
don’t
you
get
back
to
the
topic?[/quote]

I don’t know what you are talking about. I was not pointing out any typos, simply just typing what came to mind after reading through (well, skimming through) this thread. I made a post about … well… about posting nothing, but you still seemed to find fault with it and put me into a category of people who according to you use “stupid methods.” As far as I can tell the topic here is how people respond to other people on this blog, their qualifications and degrees and their personal beliefs on how one should or should not respond to post with or without cogent thought. In that vein I am simply trying to post thoughts in those same areas and trying to fit in with this thread since it is the hottest thread on the board the last couple of days.

Anyway, I think the motivation for creating a conspiracy that is ultamately hatched long after you are dead (like the Federal Reserve in 1913) is so that you can create mystery and aura about yourself and give nutty authors stuff to write about.

In that vein, so far I have no offers from anyone to join my club in which club members will conspire to rule the universe. The plan will take some time and the expected fruition will be in 2108 or 2109.
We lay the ground work now to destroy the economy of the entire universe (not just Earth, we have to think big here because it’s in the future), while enriching our members. The plan will take some time to hatch, but in the end our members will rule the financial universe. If all goes well the plan will run its course by 2107 or 2109 at the latest.
Who’s with me ?[/quote]
And I’m sure that your sarcasm isn’t intended either. It does contribute to the original topic of this thread doesn’t it? THIS IS A BLOG, NOT A PUBLISHED PAPER.I’m not the one who said that the central banking is a conspiracy. Just wanted to get others opinion on what griffin said. But, a lot of you folks like to throw bombs instead of debating what griffin said. I applaud allen for being willing to take the subject at hand to heart and be willing to further study it. He is the only one on this entire thread that seems to be willing to do that. By the way, your nick name is “creep who left”. congrats![/quote]

I came in the middle of the thread and was reponding to the repsonses to the original post. This is a blog and the “conversation” is not static, so sometimes it’s OK to respond to the responses and not to the original post. Much like your responses about not wanting to be associated with George Soros have nothing to do with the original post, but are simply responses to other postings after the original post. And as for my sarcasm, I cannot help it. I am not capable of making a point without the use of sarcasm (well, except for the point being made in the preceding statement about my need to use sarcasm).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I don’t have time to write a response to this very interesting topic, so this is a post to tell people that I would have a very well-thought out reponse, if only I had the time two do so, but I don’t and I have a PhD too so don’t think I am stupid or something, so if I had more time I would read the 237 word (or so) post further up that has no paragraph breaks and try to decipher something that is debatable in it because surely there is something to it that I could either agree with or disagree with and provide links to supporting third party opinions or facts to back up my position as to whether or not the post has merit.[/quote]
I
don’t
know
how
to
highlight
parts
of
quotes
so
that
is
why
it
reads
like
a
run
on
sentence.
But,
is
that
the
only
response
you
have
to
the
topic?
You
point
out
typos
as
intelligent
responses?
Same
stupid
method
as
Allen
from
Fallbrook
and
davelj.
Why
don’t
you
get
back
to
the
topic?[/quote]

I don’t know what you are talking about. I was not pointing out any typos, simply just typing what came to mind after reading through (well, skimming through) this thread. I made a post about … well… about posting nothing, but you still seemed to find fault with it and put me into a category of people who according to you use “stupid methods.” As far as I can tell the topic here is how people respond to other people on this blog, their qualifications and degrees and their personal beliefs on how one should or should not respond to post with or without cogent thought. In that vein I am simply trying to post thoughts in those same areas and trying to fit in with this thread since it is the hottest thread on the board the last couple of days.

Anyway, I think the motivation for creating a conspiracy that is ultamately hatched long after you are dead (like the Federal Reserve in 1913) is so that you can create mystery and aura about yourself and give nutty authors stuff to write about.

In that vein, so far I have no offers from anyone to join my club in which club members will conspire to rule the universe. The plan will take some time and the expected fruition will be in 2108 or 2109.
We lay the ground work now to destroy the economy of the entire universe (not just Earth, we have to think big here because it’s in the future), while enriching our members. The plan will take some time to hatch, but in the end our members will rule the financial universe. If all goes well the plan will run its course by 2107 or 2109 at the latest.
Who’s with me ?[/quote]
And I’m sure that your sarcasm isn’t intended either. It does contribute to the original topic of this thread doesn’t it? THIS IS A BLOG, NOT A PUBLISHED PAPER.I’m not the one who said that the central banking is a conspiracy. Just wanted to get others opinion on what griffin said. But, a lot of you folks like to throw bombs instead of debating what griffin said. I applaud allen for being willing to take the subject at hand to heart and be willing to further study it. He is the only one on this entire thread that seems to be willing to do that. By the way, your nick name is “creep who left”. congrats![/quote]

I came in the middle of the thread and was reponding to the repsonses to the original post. This is a blog and the “conversation” is not static, so sometimes it’s OK to respond to the responses and not to the original post. Much like your responses about not wanting to be associated with George Soros have nothing to do with the original post, but are simply responses to other postings after the original post. And as for my sarcasm, I cannot help it. I am not capable of making a point without the use of sarcasm (well, except for the point being made in the preceding statement about my need to use sarcasm).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

[quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan][quote=investor][quote=FormerSanDiegan]I don’t have time to write a response to this very interesting topic, so this is a post to tell people that I would have a very well-thought out reponse, if only I had the time two do so, but I don’t and I have a PhD too so don’t think I am stupid or something, so if I had more time I would read the 237 word (or so) post further up that has no paragraph breaks and try to decipher something that is debatable in it because surely there is something to it that I could either agree with or disagree with and provide links to supporting third party opinions or facts to back up my position as to whether or not the post has merit.[/quote]
I
don’t
know
how
to
highlight
parts
of
quotes
so
that
is
why
it
reads
like
a
run
on
sentence.
But,
is
that
the
only
response
you
have
to
the
topic?
You
point
out
typos
as
intelligent
responses?
Same
stupid
method
as
Allen
from
Fallbrook
and
davelj.
Why
don’t
you
get
back
to
the
topic?[/quote]

I don’t know what you are talking about. I was not pointing out any typos, simply just typing what came to mind after reading through (well, skimming through) this thread. I made a post about … well… about posting nothing, but you still seemed to find fault with it and put me into a category of people who according to you use “stupid methods.” As far as I can tell the topic here is how people respond to other people on this blog, their qualifications and degrees and their personal beliefs on how one should or should not respond to post with or without cogent thought. In that vein I am simply trying to post thoughts in those same areas and trying to fit in with this thread since it is the hottest thread on the board the last couple of days.

Anyway, I think the motivation for creating a conspiracy that is ultamately hatched long after you are dead (like the Federal Reserve in 1913) is so that you can create mystery and aura about yourself and give nutty authors stuff to write about.

In that vein, so far I have no offers from anyone to join my club in which club members will conspire to rule the universe. The plan will take some time and the expected fruition will be in 2108 or 2109.
We lay the ground work now to destroy the economy of the entire universe (not just Earth, we have to think big here because it’s in the future), while enriching our members. The plan will take some time to hatch, but in the end our members will rule the financial universe. If all goes well the plan will run its course by 2107 or 2109 at the latest.
Who’s with me ?[/quote]
And I’m sure that your sarcasm isn’t intended either. It does contribute to the original topic of this thread doesn’t it? THIS IS A BLOG, NOT A PUBLISHED PAPER.I’m not the one who said that the central banking is a conspiracy. Just wanted to get others opinion on what griffin said. But, a lot of you folks like to throw bombs instead of debating what griffin said. I applaud allen for being willing to take the subject at hand to heart and be willing to further study it. He is the only one on this entire thread that seems to be willing to do that. By the way, your nick name is “creep who left”. congrats![/quote]

I came in the middle of the thread and was reponding to the repsonses to the original post. This is a blog and the “conversation” is not static, so sometimes it’s OK to respond to the responses and not to the original post. Much like your responses about not wanting to be associated with George Soros have nothing to do with the original post, but are simply responses to other postings after the original post. And as for my sarcasm, I cannot help it. I am not capable of making a point without the use of sarcasm (well, except for the point being made in the preceding statement about my need to use sarcasm).

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

How about the following nickname

…I
…No
…Very
…Eccentric
…Stories
…That
…Others
…Reject

Of course in this case the word “know” is misspelled.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

How about the following nickname

…I
…No
…Very
…Eccentric
…Stories
…That
…Others
…Reject

Of course in this case the word “know” is misspelled.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

How about the following nickname

…I
…No
…Very
…Eccentric
…Stories
…That
…Others
…Reject

Of course in this case the word “know” is misspelled.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

How about the following nickname

…I
…No
…Very
…Eccentric
…Stories
…That
…Others
…Reject

Of course in this case the word “know” is misspelled.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

How about the following nickname

…I
…No
…Very
…Eccentric
…Stories
…That
…Others
…Reject

Of course in this case the word “know” is misspelled.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I have another idea.

Spend the money instead on a new gas dryer.
It’ll cost you in the same ballpark as the electrical work and will save you a couple hundred bucks a year in utility bills. (A load in gas dryer is about half the cost as electric).

edit …
Same thing happened to me 10 years ago. I don;t regret selling my almost new dryer on craiglist for $200 and eating the costs of the new dryer. It has paid for itself twice over the 10 years.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I have another idea.

Spend the money instead on a new gas dryer.
It’ll cost you in the same ballpark as the electrical work and will save you a couple hundred bucks a year in utility bills. (A load in gas dryer is about half the cost as electric).

edit …
Same thing happened to me 10 years ago. I don;t regret selling my almost new dryer on craiglist for $200 and eating the costs of the new dryer. It has paid for itself twice over the 10 years.

[(former)FormerSanDiegan]

I have another idea.

Spend the money instead on a new gas dryer.
It’ll cost you in the same ballpark as the electrical work and will save you a couple hundred bucks a year in utility bills. (A load in gas dryer is about half the cost as electric).

edit …
Same thing happened to me 10 years ago. I don;t regret selling my almost new dryer on craiglist for $200 and eating the costs of the new dryer. It has paid for itself twice over the 10 years.

[Author]

Posts