Gary H wrote:

David Maynard wrote:

Conspiracy buffs and paranoids always call the sane and rational 'naive'.


And you got this little tid-bit where?

From every conspiracy buff or paranoid I've ever run across, heard of,
read about, or seen in a movie. The retort to contradiction or disbelief is
that the other person is uninformed and/or naive, with naive being the last
resort after the disbeliever does not accept the 'evidence' provided as
irrefutable proof of said conspiracy.

"Psychology are Us". You are
sooo good at pulling bull**** out of the air and passing it off as valid
material. I envy you that, I think? Conclusion without verification
and you sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why
I'm here, damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me
a "conspiracy buff" and a "paranoid".

I can only go by what you say here, which was "Your arguments are truly
those of a naive person. You'll change your mind after you've been bitten
on the ass a few times." And nothing else.

No discussion of any issue, fact, or statement of mine. No rebuttal of fact
or substance. No counter argument. Just a blanket claim I'm 'naive' because
I do not agree with your opinion.

It fit the pattern I've seen exhibited by conspiracy buffs and paranoids.

Nice snip job, btw.

How about letting me in on what
my life will be like in the coming year huh? Awww come on, you know you
want to take a crack at it.

Getting a bit paranoid, are we?

I got you defined as all mouth with nothing above it. That kind of
impairment gives birth to empty-headed statements like the one you just
horked up.

A cut and paste will suffice here "Conclusion without verification and you
sound so sure of it. You have no idea who I am, what I do why I'm here,
damn, you know nothing about me yet, you are able to label me."