Yes, Col Rouge, I had on a few past occasions caught bad cases of tinea, but never as bad as this.

I would appreciate it if others would also prevail upon the moderator to rid this forum and, hopefully OLO altogether, of this particularly virulent case.

I would be most interested if others could tell me why the moderator can't see why someone who shows absolutely no regard for the wishes of others and who has contributed nothing of substance to the the discussion at hand other than personal abuse should be be allowed to continue to use an OLO account.

---

Polycarp, I fail to see the relevance of what you have written about the Oklahoma City bombings of 1995 to the topic at hand.

To many your religious views would seem rather odd, to put it mildly, so if I were you, I would be very careful before I started referring to others with whom you disagree as a "pack of loonies".

Correction to the 4th last paragraph of 2nd previous post:

It would seem that [all] CJM would allow us to discuss in these forums, are CJM's judgements of anyone who disagrees with him as being "patholog(ical)," "paranoid", "frootloops", etc.

As I have mentioned earlier in this thread, I had been unaware of the destruction of the building WTC 7 until this discussion occurred. I was also only vaguely aware of the existence of some contention as to the accuracy or completeness of official explanations relating to the destruction of the WTC in what the world saw on its TV screens. I guess I felt that the visual record was sufficient explanation.

This contention takes me back to 1980 and the Chamberlain case.

It is now a matter of record that a massive miscarriage of justice occurred in respect of the convictions recorded against Lindy and Michael Chamberlain. What is significant is that it was only an amorphous gradually accreting body of public concern as to the safety of the convictions that provided any impetus to what, as it turned out, needed to be a sustained appeal and review process.

Given that the matter proceeded to indictment, what did stagger me was the apparent official determination to proceed in the seeming absence of all the factors typically necessary for the obtaining of a conviction: no body, no opportunity, no motive, no believable weapon, no witnesses pointing toward guilt; whilst concomitantly seemingly refusing to address in a thorough and imaginative way the claim of the only witness to the event. My concern was not as to pretending the utter impossibility of guilt of those charged, it was as to the safety of the verdicts, and from everything I ever subsequently read as to the evidence and the proceedings, all I can say is that had I been a juror 'reasonable doubt' would have existed in my mind until the cows came home.

I see parallels between the seemingly compulsive need to brand any persons mentioning apparent inconsistencies in the official findings re 9/11 as 'fruitloops', 'conspiracy theorists', 'nutters', etc, and the seeming official determination, in the face of the available evidence concerning the dissappearance of Azaria Chamberlain, to force a miscarriage of justice.

If the 9/11 concerns are rubbish, the supporting evidence will soon reveal its quality through discussion.

For those who are interested in the sociopsychological phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' per se, I think that this is a well-balanced introduction to the subject:

<< http://people.howstuffworks.com/conspiracy-theory.htm >>

People can assess for themselves where James and his sock puppets would fit in that general description.

If CJ Moron is so fascinated by the "the sociopsychological phenomenon of 'conspiracy theories' per se", then why doesn't he offer us some of his own theories of this phenomenon, preferably on another forum?

I would suggest to CJ Moron that if he were to choose to do so then perhaps there may need to be more substance to his theories then simply labelling the objects of his 'investigation' as 'patholog(ical)', 'paranoid', 'frootloops', 'nutbags', etc.

Perhaps he could also tell us what he learnt from that scholarly work that he commended so highly to the rest of us that we didn't already know.

Now James, I think your continual references me to me as a "moron" constitute flaming. I've called you no such names.

You appear to be angry that I don't take your crackpot ideas about the supposed 9/11 conspiracy seriously, and you obviously resent my effort to locate these ideas within a well-established milieu about which much has been written from a social psychological perspective.

I think that I'm at least as entitled to identify what appears to be a classic example of a populist conspiracy theory as you are to rehash crackpot theories that have been rejected by virtually every serious commentator and analyst, including those from the Left. You don't like that, but so what?

Also, we're still waiting for you to explain why you posted this

<< (Firstly, whoever it was who posted under the account 'cacofonix' recently was neither daggett posting as 'cacofonix' nor cacofonix himself. I will come back to those posts later.) >>

as you promised. If it wasn't the CIA, who was it? And more to the point, how do you know?