Pericles' latest ploy is to sidetrack this discussion is the claim that none of my thinking is 'original'.

I would suggest that a lot more of my thinking is original than is his.

However, the point surely is not whether or not it has been original, but whether or not I have thought for myself and Pericles still refuses to cite even one example to demonstrate that I have not.

Pericles wrote, "Just admit that you rely on the conclusions of others ..."

Why should I, when you refuse to provide a single example of where I have?

As for Woodrow Wilson's words, I suggest people read them for themselves instead of allowing Pericles to tell them what they mean.

Here they are, yet again:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."

It's not a "claim", daggett.

>>Pericles' latest ploy is to sidetrack this discussion is the claim that none of my thinking is 'original'.<<

Just an observation.

Don't forget, my main interest lies in the thought processes that are required to support a conspiracy theory. Especially one so complex, involving cabals of international elites.

So to me, nothing is a sidetrack, since it is your reaction that is important.

Talking of reaction, the speed and enthusiasm with which you latch on to anything you read that remotely supports your wackjob ideas is truly remarkable.

Especially when you copy something without checking.

Which is why I thank you, most sincerely, for this utter gem. I truly believe it is your best yet.

>>As for Woodrow Wilson's words, I suggest people read them for themselves instead of allowing Pericles to tell them what they mean.<<

The reason it is so beautiful is, of course, that you first attempted to pass off a doctored version, before I showed you the real words.

Allow me to cut'n'paste you for a moment.

>>This is what President Wilson wrote: "There's a power so organised, so subtle, so pervasive, so interlocked, that you had better not speak above your breath when you speak in condemnation of it."<<

Yep. That's what you said.

And as you now point out to us, this was inaccurate.

The sheer chutzpah of your admonition "I suggest people read them for themselves instead of allowing Pericles to tell them what they mean" makes the eyes water.

But I certainly agree - in everything, not just nutty conspiracies - that everyone should read the material available, all of it, and make up their own mind.

Hey, it's good that we agree on at least one thing, eh?

I note, again, Pericles still refuses to substantiate his "observation" of my failure to put original thought or at least my own thought into my posts.

Of course, the reason he does not is that he knows full well that his allegation is untrue.

---

Professor Pericles has resurrected his claims to be interested "in the thought processes that are required to support a conspiracy theory."

Yet when I asked:

"So, how does Professor Pericles account for the fact that it took [six years]for me to develop any 'need' to believe that President Bush had not told us the truth about 9/11?"

... he responded:

"I dunno." (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=20)

Some interest.

Would it be too much to expect of Professor Pericles to consider an alternative hypothesis, that being that his 'subject' of study may have actually carefully and critically studied the evidence before having arrived at his conclusion?

Perhaps if he were to actually consider the evidence I have presented, that would become apparent to him.

---

Anyway, Pericles wants to attach enormous significance the fact that my original quote of Woodrow Wilson had the words "you" in place of "they".

In truth, I copied those words from "Towers of Deception" p225 exactly as they were printed. Barrie Zwicker in turn cited "Secret Records Revealed"(1999) by Dennis Laurence Cuddy p24 as well as the work cited by Pericles (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811).

Perhaps there is a discrepancy between the two. Whatever, I fail to see how that change alters the essential meaning of the words:

"a power so organised, so subtle, so pervasive, so interlocked, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it".

That sounds to me a lot more like "a secret cabal" or an "invisible government" than merely "the tendency of big businesses to use standover tactics against small ones."

It only requires a cursory spin around your various online personas, daggett, to work out that you are inexorably drawn to anything that smells like a conspiracy.

So your protestation "So, how does Professor Pericles account for the fact that it took [six years]for me to develop any 'need' to believe that President Bush had not told us the truth about 9/11?" is not that significant.

I could have offered that you were not paying attention, or you were more interested in other projects. But since I would only be guessing, I thought it better to give an honest "I dunno".

One of the more intriguing aspects of my studies is your dedication to the task. So I'm increasingly drawn towards the "so many conspiracies, so little time" theory.

I am impressed however that you are finally man enough to confess to the careless regurgitation of someone else's work.

>>In truth, I copied those words from "Towers of Deception" p225 exactly as they were printed. Barrie Zwicker in turn cited "Secret Records Revealed"(1999) by Dennis Laurence Cuddy p24 as well as the work cited by Pericles (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/14811).<<

You should always check the source, daggett. A word or two changed makes all the difference.

As happened here.

Beware the seductive power of the naked sound-bite, daggett. It is often used for mischievous purposes.

>>That sounds to me a lot more like "a secret cabal" or an "invisible government" than merely "the tendency of big businesses to use standover tactics against small ones."<<

Well of course it does.

It is meant to.

When you take a sentence out of its original context, as your sources did with Woodrow Wilson, you can make it sound like anything you choose.

Put it back into its proper place, and it is crystal clear that he is talking about big business, cartels and monopolistic behaviour. All very accurate, and even prophetic.

But nothing at all to do with secret cabals of international elites, running the universe.

Pericles latest ad hominem red herring:

"It only requires a cursory spin around your various online personas, daggett, to work out that you are inexorably drawn to anything that smells like a conspiracy."

Presumably, Pericles would have people believe that I have also been drawn to the theory that the Apollo Moon landings were staged.

Well, when Pericles substantiates this sweeping assertion with examples we can discuss it further, can't we?

Pericles wrote, "... I thought it better to give an honest 'I dunno'. "

If Professor Pericles was honest, he would admit that he is only considering 'evidence' which supports his preconceived conclusions, and ignoring evidence that does not.

---

Pericles continues to make a mountain out of the molehill about the quote from Woodrow Wilson:

"You should always check the source, daggett. "

Get off your high horse, Pericles. This is not a PhD thesis.

At least I add substance to this discussion backed up by sources and don't incessantly try to divert this discussion with ad hominem attacks.

The only time you provide sources is to nitpick my contributions.

Pericles continued, " A word or two changed makes all the difference.

"...

"When you take a sentence out of its original context, as your sources did with Woodrow Wilson, you can make it sound like anything you choose."

What rot!

I am not here to score pedantic points. I am here to show up your lies to other, more reasonable people.

If I, or Barrie Zwicker, were truly attempting to twist the words of people like Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Louis Bernays et al, into meaning something other than what they intended them to mean, that would be readily apparent to others.

You have not demonstrated that the omission of a preceding sentence somehow magically changes the clear meaning of those words, and I am sure that that will be obvious to any reasonable person.

In fact, it wasn't me that introduced the concept of secret cabals into the discussion. It was Pericles, when he wrote:

"My case is that your conspiracy theory simply does not make the slightest sense.
"Unless, of course, you believe that there is a New World Order, complete with a mega-rich 'elite' of 'globalists' and 'banksters', a 'cabal' that is who are secretly orchestrating a takeover of world government." ("Australia, Afghanistan and three unanswered questions" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10034&page=16)

My intention was to dispute the existence of an international conspiracy of Islamist extremists that are said to have perpetrated 9/11, which has been used as an excuse to wage war against Afghanistan and to remove our guarantees of civil rights.

Of course, I would agree that when the official account of 9/11 is shown to be the lie that it is, people will understand the grave implications for the true nature of power relations in the world, but that was not a bridge I was interested in crossing until Pericles forced me to.

Now that he has, I believe, I believe I have been able to demonstrate that Presidents Eisenhower, Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt and Edward Bernays, amongst others have also attested to the existence of that cabal.