Frank wrote on Dec 16
th, 2024 at 6:05pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16
th, 2024 at 5:15pm:
Frank wrote on Dec 16
th, 2024 at 4:49pm:
SadKangaroo wrote on Dec 16
th, 2024 at 4:48pm:
Conspiracies are designed to be deceptively simple, far easier to grasp than the nuanced complexities of reality.
Couldn't read further, sorry. Tears of laughter, designed to blur my vision, interposed. Will persevere when the mirth abated.
You choose not to read any further because it hits too close to home.
But blame me all you like, you were always going to if the reality of the situation was unpalatable.
Can you suggest another aim one might have when crafting a conspiracy?
You are a laughable, pompous fool, as is Meister Icky.
Your take on Rogan itself Is a conspiracy theory. You po-faced perpetual complainers make it out as a conspiracy when a bloke just lets people who want to talk to him, talk. He doesnt pretend to be a ****ing sage like the pair of you, yet more people listen to him than you, the ABC with that other Sad Whatsis as its Chair and the rest.
So here you are, silly old remnants, smelling conspiracy theories!
No. You are just boring. Pontificating, "Look at me, instead, I know better" Bbwianesque types are boring. It's not a conspiracy.
You are not compelling. It's not the other guy's fault.
I clearly hit a nerve with that one.
If you've rejected my interpretation of the results, why would you suggest the majority of his most popular episodes all focus on conspiracy theories and those pushing them?
if it's not because they're easy to digest and make the listener feel good about themselves for being able to understand them or have their beliefs validated for once in their lives, then why do you propose they're so popular?
[/quote]Think of something, ONCE IN YOUR LIFE, that we didn't read or hear on the ABC or Granuiad 3 days ago. Go on. [/quote]
If you’re suggesting my observations and opinions are borrowed wholesale, then let me commend you on your staggering projection. It’s rich coming from someone who parrots the same uncredited sources time and again, yet conveniently declines to cite them here.
If you’re so certain I’ve lifted my arguments, surely you’ve uncovered the original source you claim I’ve plagiarised. So, by all means, share it with the rest of us, unless, of course, your goal is merely to dismiss my points without engaging with them.
In doing so, you reveal nothing except your inability to argue in good faith, relying instead on projection to deflect from your own intellectual laziness.
Frank wrote on Dec 16
th, 2024 at 6:40pm:
Thank you for conspicuously avoiding the point.
Indeed.