conspiracy nuts with way too much time on their hands

[Teazer]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/gene-rosen-sandy-hook-conspiracy-theory_n_2481912.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&ncid=webmail1

A good Samaritan who harbored six terrified survivors of the Sandy Hook massacre has been singled out by conspiracy theorists accusing him of being a liar and an actor......In the aftermath, Rosen, 69, was interviewed by many of the media outlets that descended on the small community, and his anguished face flashed across television screens around the world.
The sincerity of that anguish was questioned by a group of conspiracy theorists who call themselves "truthers," Salon reported earlier this month. These truthers have so far posted Rosen's personal information online, created fake social media accounts using his name and harassed him via email and phone.

[Darthwing Teorist]

Some people SHOULD be shot in the head.

PS: Why can't they leave these people alone? Are their heads so far up their asses that they can't see reality? If they did, I am sure that they would have some compassion.

What really pissed me off, is that is one thing to believe that the guy is an actor but to actually make stuff up in his name!? Wow. But I know that a lot of activists do this: make things up to help their cause, their ideology. IMO, they actually weaken it, making it lose credibility in the eyes of the non-concerned public (whom I assume they are trying to convert).

[Interloper]

What do you want to bet that the conspiracy nutjobs who did that were anti-Semites who latched onto Rosen's Jewish-sounding name?'

Or maybe I'm just being a conspiracy theory nutjob...

[Darthwing Teorist]

That wouldn't surprise me.

[XinKuzi]

I'm really losing patience for conspiracy nutjobs...

There are so many real, actual, out in the open issues in this world that people can apply themselves to bettering. Conspiracy groups very often seem to be just thinly-veiled hate groups (eg what Interloper said).

[Steve James]

just thinly-veiled hate groups (eg what Interloper said).

Well, hate groups were always fond of blaming the "Jewish" media. That was during the 50s, which is a period that many look back upon with fondness. Then, in the 60s, hate groups complained about the "liberal" media --that was showing race mixing and promoting an un-American political views. In the 70s and 80s, it became a political liability to openly criticize Jews, and others; it became politically correct to generalize about issues, particularly the media and who controls it. So, claiming that a guy named Rosen was a media shill would ring true to members of hate groups; but, I don't know whether most people today would make the connection immediately. Of course, that's just the way the hate groups want it.

[I-mon]

This is clearly a conspiracy designed to discredit conspiracy theorists.

[Interloper]

This is clearly a conspiracy designed to discredit conspiracy theorists.

[gzregorz]

This is why I got into it with two people on this board.

The real question is why do people get their information from sources they know have been wrong in the past? Alex Jones and others have been wrong about so many things yet people still listen to what they have to say.

This whole thing was started by a blogger who is a college professor on the media who believes the whole thing is a hoax and was all done with actors.

[Michael]

The real question is why do people get their information from sources they know have been wrong in the past? Alex Jones and others have been wrong about so many things yet people still listen to what they have to say.

What source of information do you consider reliable? How do you sort the wheat from the chaff?

[gzregorz]

Seriously?

[Michael]

It's a simple question, and yes I seriously want to know what source of information you consider reliable and how do you figure that out?

[gzregorz]

I'll answer your question with a question, how many times has Alex Jones been right?

[Michael]

It sounds like your reasoning is that if an information source is inaccurate, it should be discarded. I'm sure there's some kind of judgement about how accurate it needs to be, or are you suggesting there are information sources that are perfectly accurate? In either case, can you give an example of an information source that is acceptable? I've been told by a few people here, like you, that certain sources are not allowed. So which ones are allowed?

[Michael]

I'll answer your question with a question, how many times has Alex Jones been right?

He's usually right when he says, "This is Alex Jones." But some conspiracy nutjobs don't think he's really Alex Jones, so