I have been complimented before for the opacity of some of my posts, examinator, (compliments which, by the way, I have deeply appreciated, coming as they have from one of the best in the business of articulate expression on OLO) so rest assured it is deliberate. I try to craft my posts much as the scribes who drew up the (I think, five) original copies of the Magna Carta. You know, right hand justification of text, virtual elimination of blank space on the parchment, full use of the 350 word allowance (in the modern context), and such like. All to guard against guess what? Falsification of the original wording and meaning.

So no, I cannot rewrite it just because you may not yet have had your second bottle of wine. (Gosh, I haven't had my second bottle yet!) But (and there is always a 'but', isn't there?) perhaps we can get at an elucidation from a different angle. Given that Maximillion is unwilling/unable to post links to specific posts illustrating 'conspiracy theory', perhaps we can explore the 'theory' using sterile, uncontaminated, raw material that is not presently part of any known 'conspiracy theory'.

Let's use the statement from your own post in this thread as at Wednesday, 25 March 2009 11:11:34 AM that ".... Even Aussie box conspiracy between TWO groups [-] self interest blew it out of the water.", as a starter.

I assume you are referring to the admitted cartel behaviour of Amcor (the self-confessed initiator of the alleged agreement) and Visy, or more correctly, that alleged of Richard Pratt, the principal of that company, in your reference. Your statement is an assertion. I am most interested to know whose self-interest you see as having 'blown [the alleged conspiracy] out of the water'.

I'll be the conspiracy theorist. You just tell me whose you think the self-interest was that blew this 'conspiracy' out of the water, and we'll go from there. In the process we might just test out the 'dot theory', the one that says the more dots ...

Two observations -

The word "conspiracy" means to plot something that is illegal.

Not every underhanded scheme undertaken by the authorities (for example) is necessarily illegal, therefore no technical conspiracy may exist.

Also, I have a theory that one day I will win the lottery. If I never buy a ticket, the idea remains nothing more than a theory.

Once I buy a ticket, it is no longer a theory but becomes a real possibility, no matter how remote.

When evidence of a conspiracy is ignored or cannot be satisfactorily explained, the ideas stay alive.

While truth can be stranger than fiction it does not necessarily follow that something that might be possible is also probable or likely.

Like anything else we mere mortals have only our common sense to steer us - to weigh up probabilities based on opportunity, motive, logistics etal.

Equally to consider is that the existence of motive and opportunity does not always a crime or conspiracy make.

Test this one out for conspiracy.3 times I've tried to post on my own topic "Obama" on this very sight,ie general discussions.Twice last night and once just now.All have failed.Would someone try to post a comment and let me know if you have tried and failed.

"Given that Maximillion is unwilling/unable to post links to specific posts illustrating 'conspiracy theory', perhaps we can explore the 'theory' using sterile, uncontaminated, raw material that is not presently part of any known 'conspiracy theory'."

no need my friend

this "new glove puppet" has been inserted because I mention CT in the Centrelink Chapter of my book, ie the book that was pirated by the brother/sister [to THIS Forum] Cash for Comment droogs at familylawwebguide.com

and THAT topic [we can't afford to pay the Old Age Pension] has been required to raise its ugly head again in this forum on same day as this thread.

so because I am just a nice guy, I will repeat from other thread

"So, because of all the confusion, I have decided to release the CentreLink Chapter of my book free. After all your Cash for Comment brothers [and sisters] under Howard instuctions pirated the book, so it IS out there in the public domaim, albeit illegally [and still facing a million dollar lawsuit]

so goto http://www.ablokesguide.com to read it.

And you will note the reason for the conjunctive thread on Conspiracy Theories"

Arjay: << Test this one out for conspiracy.3 times I've tried to post on my own topic "Obama" on this very sight,ie general discussions.Twice last night and once just now.All have failed.Would someone try to post a comment and let me know if you have tried and failed. >>

It's there, Arjay, with 6 posts including yours.

I think that, like most "conspiracies", it's in the mind of the incompetent, paranoid or overimaginative observer.