pap

Is that your argument winning coup de grace? Give up if so.

Cheers for the kind words and the support, ottery. Conspiracy theorists are supposed to be the crazy ones, but I only see one or two people on here going mental.

Nowt new here. Keep suckling.

What position are you taking here? That these people aren't real, or might not be real? All quotes are sourced and dated, while the vast majority number of them have video and/or other resources. Your other point is that "not all of them are saying it's a grand conspiracy". It really betrays your own expectations more than anything else. Hoping that they were all going say "IT WAS THE F**KIN' LIZARDS, DUDE!"? I bet you were. What you've actually got is a bunch of people with military or public service backgrounds with questions. The clue is in the name. Patriots -- Question --- 9/11 The link has been posted to counter Verbal's perpetually sensationalised notion that anyone asking questions is an anti-semite or Neo Nazi or whatever.

Beverley Crusher all day long, Alps I think you're probably thinking about Measure of a Man, which was a very good episode, in which Pulaski argues that Data is Starfleet property.

Very good post, Verbal. It's nice to see you step away from your more rapid tropes and make an appeal based on reason, but it's more of the same. Are some conspiracy theorists off-beam? Of course they are. As much as you like to suggest that I believe everything I read, I dismiss around 90% of the stuff I see immediately. Thing is, we can take your line of reasoning and apply it to any group of people. This is what the EDL do when they go window-shopping for the worst excesses of Islamic-inspired extremism in the world. I could make a case that Christianity was evil based on the actions of a few extreme movements, but anyone would see right through it. So yes, I'll happily concede that there are some crazy people, but I can't let you keep pretending they are representative of the wider whole. You have been referred to more credible people time and time again. I'll post it again to save you the effort of scrolling:- http://patriotsquestion911.com/ On the subject of Savile, I'm perfectly aware of Rotten's claims. See the Savile thread - I posted the audio there. This isn't news to me.

Lovely.

I'll be getting PS4 anyway, but the way I've come to see PC purchases ( for entertainment purposes anyway ) is that it's very much a loss leader. Initial costs are big, but the cost of doing business after that is much cheaper. Those Steam Sales are awesome.

I got my machine from chillblast, who are based in Bournemouth. You probs won't be too surprised to learn that I don't spend much on anything save geeky stuff. ms pap has a lovely attitude when it comes to computers. She reckons racing drivers wouldn't be caught dead driving a crappy car, and that computer programmers should have capable machines. My machine cost around 1700UKP with VAT. I reckon you could spend £600-£800 and get something really capable.

I'd be a bit more careful about who you throw your lot in with, Bazza. holepuncture's the chap who likes to call foreigners vermin. Like I said, nice company matey.

F**k that ****, smirkers. Buy something proper Can play slightly more than Civ then

Keeping excellent company, I see. Vermin. All of them.

Aw great. Is my prize better than being a racist who refers to fellow human beings as vermin?

Interesting choice, given that Fargo is based on a true story.

ms pap has been to around six or seven games with me, but I don't think she has been to St Marys yet.

Who knows, but our food chain, much like anything else, will become a hell of a lot more complex. Taken collectively, that is a vast amount of trust and power invested in a comparatively small number of companies. Players like Monsanto, who already control vast portions of the food industry, are the sort of companies that will benefit.

Fixed that for you, mate. Cheers for the background info. It allowed me to add accurate onomatopoeic suckling sounds that really bring home the CB Fry kowtowing experience!

Ah yes, you contend that ITV broke the story. The "madman" Icke was almost a year in front of them. The BBC were ready to go around the time of Savile's death. All you're really doing here is confirming your teat-suckling bias of not believing something to be "uncovered" until it hits the mainstream media. What point are you making here? That if you use the word "horsesh!t" or "dinlow", that somehow makes up for the lack of content. Speaking for the forum? That always ends well. Our old mate Worzel Gummidge returns again! Unfortunately, it's a strawman re-run. If you're going to feed on the posts of others, at least vomit your points up in an original way, ta.

This is a massive development, although a potentially worrying one. It could mean the end of small scale suppliers in the food industry. Lab-grown food takes the farmer out of the loop, and will leave big corp in the position where they control the food industry soup-to-nuts.

There are different sorts of conspiracies, CB Fry. Savile was at the very least, a proven case of a conspiracy of silence. How many people have since come forward and said they knew about it? The establishment knew about him. Complaints were made and dropped in the 1970s. He was no doubt facilitated by people who were supposed to be providing a duty of care. It's not a conspiracy. It's several. Your money shot out of the way, it and the rest of your post is strawman nonsense I won't be drawn into.

Mate, after the terrible job you've done on your own position, you're the last person I'd get to formulate mine. Find another hobby.

Dan was part of a crowd I ran with in the late 90s/early 2000s. We used to drink in The Bent Brief, particularly when local legend Gary was playing guitar. Sound familiar?

I'm merely pointing out the consequences of having the myopic viewpoint you claim to espouse. Not a conspiracy theory, therefore all the kids were liars before the mainstream media made it true. Your question about who "finally uncovered" Savile is redundant. You only believe things when the mainstream media report them. Those "tw4ts on the Internet" were banging on about Savile for years before ITV ever got their "exclusive", so while I'm sure that ITV "finally uncovered" things for CB "I like things off the TV" Fry, some people got their news a lot earlier. The BBC tried to go for it the year before, but didn't for whatever reason, didn't. No one was interested in publishing the story when he was alive, largely because of the chance of being sued into oblivion in Britain, libel capital of the world. Our own courts are being used to protect private individuals against press scrutiny - "say what you want, but be prepared to lose everything if you do and can't prove it to a judicial standard". Freedom of speech, my arse. More often than not, the very mention of libel stifles investigation. You painted yourself into this corner, CB Fry. You could have been conciliatory, said "yeah, don't really think x went down the way it did", but in your zeal to dismiss every conspiracy, you've given me the wonderful impression of SaintsWeb's Mr Nasty permanently suckling at the teats of his masters. Nothing is true until corporations or governments say it is, eh? Beautiful. Do it again.

So basically, your stance is "conspiracy theorists are nutters until it hits the mainstream media"? That must be a very myopic world view, if you don't mind me saying. You're essentially waiting for the mainstream media to deliver you the truth, which is the same thing as waiting for a corporation or government to give you the truth. Per Verbal's ramblings earlier on about investigative journalists. He makes the colossal error of assuming that it doesn't happen, or hasn't happened and that if it did happen, we'd all know about it. That's patently not true, and you don't have to look far to see how hundreds of witnesses can be kept silent if the right people want them to be. Using your logic, every kid that was abused by Jimmy Savile (and the rumoured wider circle) was a liar until the mainstream media exonerated them. Even after the news broke, people asked "why didn't they go to the police sooner", or "why come out after he's dead". The reality of the situation is that every kid that was abused by Savile was an actually an abused kid all along, irrespective of whether the mainstream media reported it or not. Those that were brave enough to overcome the intimidation and actually go to the authorities were routinely ignored. The establishment knew all along what Savile was. Thatcher's private secretary repeatedly militated against Savile's elevation to a Knight of the British Empire. Still, in your world, no conspiracies exist - so at the time, those kids were just liars. I've read your specious reasoning and baseless conclusions. It's guff because you use the adjective "utter" , eh? Fascinating.

Most agency work is a complete waste of public money. The thinking is "we can have a low permanent headcount and increase capacity as required". The problem in almost all cases is not level-setting the permanent staff properly, meaning that temporary staff are practically permanently required.