A silly and superficial article. Yes, there are some unfounded conspiracy theories that can easily be disproven beyond reasonable doubt. But there are also serious dysfunctions in governance, crimes against humanity committed and protected by states, that need to be brought to account on a basis of sober factual analysis. Is the writer suggesting that nothing ever happens that should not have happened and that is being covered up afterwards? This kind of smart-alec commentary makes it harder for people trying to uncover real shameful things that governments have done to defenceless people - things like the sinking of SIEV X, the Tampa, the "children overboard" fraud, the abuses of Rau, Solon, the Bakhtiari family, Shayan Badraie, David HIcks, Mamdouh Habib, and Jack Thomas ... if we lose our preparedness to criticise and scrutinise state conduct, we will have lost our right to our democracy. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

In answer to your question, Tony, no, the writer does not think that there aren't things that happen that shouldn't have. Nor does the writer accept that articles such as this in any way hamper people from uncovering facts about real issues, injustices, scandals or cover-ups. He was simply offering an explanation, in lighter vein, for the seemingly high correlation between the last half-century's most memorable moments and its most famous conspiracy theories. The price of democracy may be eternal vigilance, but over-seriousness may also come at a price.

Actually, Richard, I consider your article to have been most thought-provoking. Yes; there is something a bit, well, strange about those co-incidences, is'nt there? So much so that I read the previous post with newly awaked suspicion: do you think it could have been penned by one who slipped under the net, so to speak?

See, I've heard there is a plot by ABC to replace the threatened "Values Test" on immigrants by showing them instead re-runs of Glass House. Those who don't crack a grin at either Will, Hughsie or Corrine are out on their little immigrant behinds immediately, thus preserving our great country from the ills of mass produced garlic, eating with the left hand and being unable to reply to the grafitti on toilet doors.

Knowing that the average Aussie character has perfected the art of being able both to eat and talk with tongue firmly implanted in cheek it has been decided that a grin is at least the first step in performing this difficult physical feat: so those who can't manage one are surely lefty-terrorist-feminazi-ethnics. And mate, I think you've uncovered one in the very first post!

Now, are you gonna call Amanda or shall I?

I also enjoyed Castles article but I was annoyed by the knee-jerk response by Tony. If the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, then surely satire has been one of the more effective tools for protecting it? Did Tony miss this? Orwell and Swift certainly subscribed to the view the view that human folly might be best exposed through humour and satire.

Perhaps, he also missed the writer's not insignificant reference to Kubler Ross and the stages of grieving, which eventually lead to acceptance. By concocting implausible conspiracy theories, aren't we really choosing to remain in a state of disbelief? What are the potential dangers in that? Terrible and unfair things can and do happen to people. We might do better to accept this and take action rather than revel in pointless paranoia.

Liked the article Richard and agreed with the other two comments. All I can say to Tony is..........get a life. if you knew Richard's work you would know his style including his delightful satirical comments

Thank you Working Granny and Katier. I am touched by your comments. I don't normally like to respond to my own pieces, but I now see that I am the most prolific commentator on my own work - not a good sign.