Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Damp squibs | |
Posted by: | Alan Clark | |
Date/Time: | 21/10/14 08:59:00 |
Oh dear. Time for a simple explanation. I was making a joke. As such my research needed only to be noting the claims of people such as MB on this thread. The basis of my joke is that it seems likely, given multiple postings on this thread and others, that MB would mistake circumstance for evidence. That is the basis of my joke and that defines the level of research I needed to conduct. I would note that MB, whilst clearly trawling all corners of the internet, is not really conducting research as such. He is refering to others' work without validation of their work (I'm saying 'work' but there might be a better term). The case in point, the van with markings that somehow arouse suspicion is a good example of this. MB has stated that these are the obvious culprits of the bus explosion. That does appear to be leaping to a very dubious conclusion rather than conducting true research. And as a final dull note - my statement was not 'profound'. It was a joke, a piss-take. Do you see how I did this? By having the writing on the van demonstrate the company offered sheep shearing service. So the term subsequently used of being 'fleeced' refers back to this service. Do you see now? Or do you need more time? If you can't tell the difference between profound and joke then you really should not be viewing have the rubbish on consparicy theories. |