CJMorgan has been a little premature in equating Arjay's concerns as to posting problems seemingly associated with the 'Obama' topic, of which Arjay is the opening poster, with being symptomatic of 'conspiracy theory' in its derogatory sense.

It seems there have been technical problems, in outline similar to Arjay's claimed one that he felt was only related to the 'Obama' topic, being experienced by other OLO users. I have reposted what I think to be a similar test post to Arjay's second post in the 'Obama' thread, a post by bushbred in the comments thread to the article 'How our political system fails us', in the technical support thread 'OLO Index Page Display Problems', here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2608#59225

And wouldn't you know it, on the first attempt at posting that very comment in which I had said I had not experienced any problem posting, I got a 'Server error' message. My second attempt, made immediately after, succeeded. I also note Sancho's technical support topic 'Forum defaults-page display' which, whilst it does not expressly mention slowness of the OLO site to load pages, you would have to think has been to some extent prompted by slowness of response. So something seems not quite right in relation to OLO, and its not just in Arjay's 'overimaginative' mind.

In bringing up this topic, 'Conspiracy theory', after having had to move (oh so slowly) between various OLO pages whilst compiling this post (at around 4:00 AM EDST, not exactly OLO's busiest time) in order to finally be able to post it, I encountered four successive 'Server error' messages before I was finally able to access the last page of the thread. They were incidents numbered 459-2103, 551-2203, 620-2303, and 735-2603 respectively.

Perhaps its lack of information where one might otherwise expect it that stimulates 'conspiracy theories'?

I don't want to put words in examinator's mouth, so I am still waiting for a suggestion as to whose self-interest unraveled the 'box conspiracy'.

What a shame this thread has stalled. There are other OLO users out there who have not posted yet, but have been following with some degree of interest. It would be a pity to disappoint them.

OLO userID Agronomist was going to offer the '9/11 Truth' thread (opened by daggett on Monday, 22 September 2008 at 4:29:43 PM) as an example of 'conspiracy theory' but seemingly refrained, saying "At that point I realised Forest would be sufficiently immersed in conspiracy theories for me [not] to bother pointing one out." (I do hope the conventionally bracketed insertion of 'not' for sense was correctly positioned.) See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#59335 Be aware that clicking this link, although it will take you direct to this comment, will result in loading the whole now very long 487 post thread. You can find Agronomist's post at the top of the page in this link, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82 , which only requires the loading of but one page.

Whilst I may be honoured to be considered 'immersed in conspiracy theories' as a consequence of having posted in that thread, I feel Agronomist has wielded too broad a brush in implicitly suggesting the whole thread, when the suggested requirement was for a post (in fact three posts) illustrating the claimed phenomenon. Had Agronomist offered daggett's opening post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#45945 , that may have been revealing. Had he offered the post of mine but four posts after the opening post he may have offered even more insight into the mind of a 'conspiracy theorist'. On page 3 of that thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=3 , another post of mine may have helped even further.

But what about the 'box conspiracy'? Any takers?

Full credit to examinator if he is being cautious in pursuing any assertion as to anyone's self-interest having blown the 'box conspiracy' out of the water without being able to provide a reference.

The article 'Richard Pratt and the ACCC - Criminal sanctions through the back door?' on the law firm Mallesons Stephen Jacques website, http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2008/Sep/9586437w.htm , is a useful summary of some of the legal issues seen to be arising from the alleged 'box conspiracy' , a claimed cartel involving Amcor and Visy.

Another article published in The Australian newspaper on 10 December 2007, titled 'Amcor scammer still on payroll', can be viewed here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22896882-601,00.html . A most interesting claim in this article is that ".... Amcor was given immunity from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for reporting the cartel after learning of the existence of the Hodgson tapes." The claim is most interesting because, if true, that would mean the ACCC had given an immunity to Amcor expressly forbidden by the relevant legislation as being able to be offered to a ringleader in a cartel, which just such ringleader in this case Amcor self-confessedly was.

Yet another article published in The Age newspaper on 13 December 2008, titled 'Watchdog feels weight of Pratt's fall', can be viewed here: http://business.theage.com.au/business/watchdog-feels-weight-of-pratts-fall-20081212-6xlv.html?page=-1 . This article poses a most interesting question in its last three paragraphs. My answer to it is that there had been a change of government, and that it was seen by some as an opportune time to throw legal propriety to the wolves in order to mount a malicious prosecution.

Now for some 'conspiracy theory'.

What if the very creation of the cartel was itself part of a 'set-up' of Visy and Richard Pratt? It was Amcor that proposed it to Visy, not the other way around.

What if interests within Amcor deliberately arranged for the bringing into being of taped recordings of incriminating conversations between certain of its own executives, conversations conducted with utter sincerity by those party to them, and thereby coming to constitute in due course 'evidence' implicating Visy?

Too far fetched?

Forrest, attributing a technical server glitch at OLO to some kind of conspiracy against an individual user seems just a tad paranoid to me.

CJMorgan says:

"Forrest, attributing a technical server glitch at OLO to some kind of conspiracy against an individual user seems just a tad paranoid to me."

I couldn't agree more CJ. That's why I posted that bushbred had seemed to have experienced a similar problem to Arjay. I hadn't thought of it in that way, but I've now mentioned it on the technical support thread here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2637#59398 , and thanked you for the idea there.

Back to the 'box conspiracy', and the search for the self-interest that blew it out of the water.

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 September 2008, titled 'Ex-Amcor boss tells of blackmail bid' may provide a clue. See: http://business.smh.com.au/business/examcor-boss-tells-of-blackmail-bid-20080912-4fgl.html . An Age article on the same day is even more explicit. See: http://business.theage.com.au/business/how-a-cartels-wheels-fell-off-20080912-4fl7.html?page=-1 . Interestingly, each article is by the same correspondent, Leonie Wood.

The incredible immediate recommendation by the regulator, the ACCC, that Amcor NOT advise the Australian Stock Exchanges of the discovery of Amcor being in breach of the law with respect to engaging in cartel conduct, when the law required that it DID, is most revealing. It could be interpreted as indicating the ACCC already knew there would be no adverse affect on the Amcor share value because it (the ACCC) ALREADY had an intention of providing immunity, an intention that could seemingly only have been formed if the ACCC had been already considering cartel conduct also involving Visy BEFORE Amcor reported it. An already-formed intention to provide immunity could only indicate a prior acknowledgement somewhere within the ACCC that Amcor would NEED it: that interests within Amcor had deliberately involved Visy in a cartel in the very first place, acting as agents provocateur of the very conduct itself, not the mere subsequent entrapment of Richard Pratt with respect to later sworn testimony!

Let's see whether Maximillion is likely to be getting much insight into 'conspiracy theory' from this thread. I'll try and summarize some of the pithiest observations in this post.

spindoc, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 9:27:32 AM:

"The world seems to be divided evenly into two main groups .... those who try to control their own destiny .... [who] typically don’t see themselves as victims and are not vulnerable to the fear, uncertainty and doubt .... The other group see “others” as responsible for their destiny .... demonstrat[ing] a very unhealthy scepticism which is normally focused upon some “authority” or what they see as overly powerful institutions, thus feeding their sense of helplessness. Conspiracy theories are simply a manifestation of that frustration, ...."

wobbles, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 12:28:02 PM:

"With the speed and breadth of modern communications - free from censorship - people are hearing and seeing a lot more about everything. Much of it is demonstrably false and prejudicial but a lot of it isn't."

Divorce Doctor, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:23:47 PM:

"Politically Correct people ... have their greatest fear that they might be forced to THINK, and God Forbid, DO something about it ... [and] use the derogatory term CT ... to simply "get with the strength", ..."

Arjay, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 4:54:48 PM:

"Only the small secrets need to be hidden.The really big secrets are not because they are repressed by our incredulity."

Maximillion, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:34:00 AM:

"... no lie is big enough anymore."

rache, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 10:14:09 PM:

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

Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 27 March 2009 3:59:56 AM:

"Perhaps its lack of information where one might otherwise expect it that stimulates 'conspiracy theories'?"

Maximillion says, elsewhere, "... I don't often need to re-read the entire thread, ...". See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2637#59386 . Maximillion must be blessed with total recall. For those of us who are not, this summary.

Eyes wired shut?