From: Ken Clements (Ken@Innovation-On-Demand.com)
Date: Tue Jan 08 2002 - 16:10:13 MST
John Clark wrote:
> Dossy <firstname.lastname@example.org> Wrote:
> >many called what I presented "ludicrous" or "sick" or "wildly irrational"
> Yes, but not as many as there should have been, those of you who
> passed over Dossy's post in silence should be ashamed of yourself.
Give us a break, John. Some of us don't respond to wildly irrational stuff because
we do not want to be baited, or to clog up the list with yet more useless jabber.
Conspiracy theory speculation, by its very nature, spawns memetic replication and
mutation nearly without bound. Yes, I find Dossy's post completely foolish. IMHO,
most who post such things have no experience or knowledge of how big organizations
work. "The government" is a phrase thrown around as if it were one thing, with one
controlling will, able to contrive outcomes in the world and make them happen. In
fact, the coordination of agencies needed to get anything big accomplished, in the
US, is always at the edge of the capabilities of the people trying to manage it;
and that is in the full light of day.
Benjamin Franklin understood covert operations very well, and said: "Three may keep
a secret, if two of them are dead." The bigger the operation, the sooner it will
no longer be secret. Planners know this, and must provide for the time when their
actions become public knowledge. Only a conspiracy of idiots would do otherwise.
What is ludicrous on the US side is even worse on the other. Dossy would have us
believe that a terrorist group accepted the following deal: "We will help you hit
a few of our buildings, and then we get to come over with our full military and
annihilate you and all your friends."
Passing over conspiracy theory posts is not apathy. I ask that folks ignore this
thread, and let it die.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:33 MST