gbaji wrote:
It's backwards logic, starting with the assumed conclusion and then listing only the facts that support it, while ignoring all the ones that don't. That's why it's a bunk conspiracy theory.
angrymnk wrote:
You are right. And also late to the party. If you read the initial posts ( who does that ), you would know that I am not disagreeing with you. I am, however, curious about what Gbaji considers non-bunk.
Well, if you'd only *not* edited out the relevant parts of my post, you'd have noticed that I gave a clear explanation of what makes a conspiracy theory "bunk". It should therefore not take much noodling to conclude that theories which don't suffer these failings might "not be bunk". Kinda makes me wonder why you felt the need to demand the very explanation which I gave and you ignored the first time around. And no, I'm not going to run around listing off theories I think have merit and those I think don't. I think providing the criteria by which one can make that determination for themselves should be more than sufficient.
borrowed from SPG