The astonishing ignorance of people who believe the official 9/11 story

WTC rubble

The Daily Mail has published an article, One in seven believe U.S. government staged the 9/11 attacks in conspiracy, which is based on a poll for the BBC Two programme, The Conspiracy Files – Ten Years On.

The telephone survey conducted by Gfk NOP found that 14 per cent of Britons believed that there was a wider conspiracy involving the US administration.

The Mail article was fair, and nice to see a picture of Alex Jones in the mainstream British press, but I imagine that the BBC programme will be another “hit piece” like their previous propaganda programmes.

What I found most interesting about the Mail’s article were the readers’ comments and the fact that (at the time of writing) the pro-conspiracy comments are the ones being favoured with green arrows, although I see that Infowars has linked to it, so that should have helped.

But the really important thing is that, as is normal with such comments, the “Truthers” tend to come over as intelligent and willing to explain why they believe what they do, and the people who believe the Government’s version of events have a strange inability to form any sort of argument at all, instead, resorting to their usual comfort blankets of name-calling and general abuse, fake patriotism, weepy emotion and appeals for “respect for the dead” and of course the exhibition of total trust of government and unwillingness to personally evaluate the situation: “I refuse to believe the government would do that”.

I hope to write a few more posts on the attacks of 9/11 in the run-up to the tenth anniversary just nine days away, but I just wanted to draw your attention to the quality of comment from these people who, for whatever reason, believe the government over the evidence of their own senses.

The simple answer is the right one. Islamic Jihadists planned it and did it. End of story.

– kevin webb, accrington lancs, 29/8/2011

Kevin sounds delusional or perhaps scared. “End of story” means that, typically, he is convinced he is right, but doesn’t have the knowledge to debate it at all.

I have not read this rubbish just the head lines and how any body can think that the americans could do such a thing is complete and utter rubbish , if you say something to yourself often enough you will believe it so stop …………they would not do such a thing R I P The lost souls of 9/11 and my thoughts and best wishes are sent to the families and friends of all those who were murdered on that awful day

– lynn , by the sea wish i was i new york new york but will keep dreaming …., 29/8/2011

Lynn just reads headlines, apparently, then gets bossy, “So stop” and then insists that the government “would not do such a thing” and finishes on a flurry of sentimentality.

I agree with Paul. When people believe a conspiracy theory they cant let it go even when you give thwm proof. I can give a great deal of proof but the still wouldnt believe it.

– Lewis, England, 29/8/2011 18:54

Lewis has a ‘great deal of proof’. Okay, Lewis, let’s hear it… No? Didn’t think we would get any – just the usual hot air and lazy typing.

The sad thing about these ‘1 in 7′ morons who always believe in conspiracies about almost every international event, is that they also vote in elections! No wonder we end up with incompetent and inexperienced fools in high political office like Obama and his cronies. I’ll bet that every one of these idiots also believe that aliens are amongst us, and little green men from Mars are ready to invade!

– lesliemoss, malibu USA, 29/8/2011 18:45

The man from Malibu here uses the name-calling technique and introduces “little green men from Mars” into the equation because he is desperately short of ideas. And in my experience, 9/11 Truthers are more likely to be Republicans than Democrats.

Wow, the shrinks must be having a field day with all these loonies on the loose……what a disgrace to the memories of those lost on that awful day. You “theorists” should be ashamed of yourselves…

– cayman214, anywhere, USA, 29/8/2011 18:33

Can these people not debate AT ALL? They have serious problems – and note that I should be “ashamed” of myself. I wonder what he thinks of the many truth groups set up by people who lost loved ones on 9/11. He probably doesn’t even know they exist, just like the damning evidence against the US Administration.

Anyone who thinks that the USA government were involved in any way, is completely off their trolley.

– Above Average, Here, 29/8/2011 18:24

..and the earth is flat and the sun orbits it.

– Rolf Wittwer, Zürich Switzerland, 29/8/2011 17:59

DM readers are the new Sun readers; uneducated, uninformed, scientifically illiterate. How stupid do you have to be to buy into idiotic conspiracy theories, created in the muslim world where everything is a conspiracy. I despair at the intelligence of DM readers – they would have been called peasants in earlier times.

– Educated, UK, 29/8/2011 17:52

And most of them are DM readers! What a bunch of wackos ! read the comments that are getting the most green arrows and then try and tell me that your average DM reader is normal. And to think these people are walking the streets without any supervision! Scary.

– Robert, Manchester, 29/8/2011 17:39

Wow, this story about conspiracy wackos has certainly brought out the conspiracy wackos. As with many conspiracy theories (including the classic moon landing one), there is a superficial logic to the claims that suckers in the ignorant. But they don’t hold up to rigorous scrutiny. Trouble is that once people buy into a conspiracy theory they refuse to let it go and admit their ignorance, so there’s little point in trying to show them the evidence. It’s a bit like arguing with a creationist in that respect.

– Paul, London, 29/8/2011 17:35

Just some more general insults there. I can imagine Paul “arguing with a creationist”. It would go something like, “You’re a wacko, blah, blah, blah… ”

Evidence and facts to people like this are obviously an inconvenience. They think they are to be considered right for no other reason than they say so and if you don’t submit to their viewpoint then you are a moron/idiot/nutter…

Being an American I find this article ugly and offensive! I was there on 9/11…in NYC and believe me as much crap my government is responsible in the world in the past an present this is one atrocity that cannot be put at the door of Washington! The cowards that planned these attacks are thank god dead and as a nation we have survived and became stronger…only an ignorant, uneducated ass could come up with this plot theory! What would the purpose be?! Enough! It’s a disgrace to even go there!

– D.A.ward, London, UK, 29/8/2011 17:33

This person was in New York on 9/11 so obviously he knows everything that went on. Riiiiiight. Then he reckons that the USA has become stronger in the past decade (with the usual accompanying offensive name-calling). Clearly, the US economy is in deep, deep trouble. In fact, it is hard to think of one way in which the USA has become stronger.

Where did they conduct this survey, in a mental institution? Either that or this is a new low for those who love to hate.

– Whit, Houston USA, 29/8/2011 17:14

After the childish first comment, we get a familiar twist with this one: if your opinion is different it means you “hate”. All those 9/11 families for truth groups must really hate their dead relatives.

I have done research on this and found out just how wrong the conspireacy theiorts are. They were quite convicing at the time but they missed out alot more then people realise. For those who believe 9/11 was an inside job. I recomend you go to the website debunking 9/11 myths. It will explain pretty much everything. To all those who are gonna tell me I wrong or low rate my comment and say I’m wrong. I say do proper research.

– Lewis, England, 29/8/2011 17:03

It’s Lewis again. He’s done some research, but he still doesn’t tell us what he’s found.

Well I was there and the idiots who think this was a conspiracy are idiots.

– Ruth, Everywhere and anywhere, 29/8/2011


Let me guess…these 1 in 7 include leftist, global warming nut jobs, ACORN and other dissaffected USA Bashers. Now I can see 1 in 7 in the case.

– Laurence , Pewsey, WILTS UK, 29/8/2011

Chances are that 9/11 Truthers are more likely to be wise to the carbon scam as well.

The truthers are, without question, the most obnoxious people on the internet, and that takes some doing. Every single video on yutube in any way related to 9/11 is spammed to death with brainless comments like “inside job”, “illuminati” and “new world order”, perhaps with a reference to operation northwoods to give their argument “overwhelming proof”. But ignoring their rather disturbing paranoia, their theories are complete nonsense, and have been debunked numerous times. e.g. In answer to the top rated comment, the BBC said that because they had been told Building 7 would collapse at any moment. That’s to say nothing of the “missile hit the pentagon” theory, or the “explosives were planted in the twin towers without anybody noticing” idea, or my personal favourite, the “no planers” who believe that whatever hit each tower was NOT a plane! Just grow up truthers, you embarrass yourself with your ridiculous rants.

– pedantic hamsik, bratislava, slovakia,

…obviously unaware of his own ridiculous rant.

There is no evidence supporting these claims. Some people a so stupid.

– Tman666, Surrey, England, 29/8/2011 15:22

Amusing though it is to be rebuked for being ‘stupid’ by someone who cannot spell the most simple of words, this person should stop being lazy and look for the evidence. There is enough of it out there.

Those people who believe this need to get glass belt buckles so they can see where they are going. All these theorist are just a bunch on c**p. They also believe in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny. Also that the world is flat so dont go to close to the edge as you might fall off.

– Charles Frost, Missouri City, Texas,

I don’t know about you, but I’m getting bored with this now. I tend not to call people names like “idiot” or “moron” but if anyone deserves it, I guess these people do.

Anyone who believes in government involvement also has to assume that George Bush had the brains to arrange it. Big fail.

– Teresa, New Zealand, 29/8/2011 14:21

This is a semi-sensible comment, but it assumes that Bush was in charge rather than being just a puppet.

Poor demented fools because someone starts the rumour on the web and produces “proof” that the US government were involved they believe it. I would put money on it that the majority of them think obama is a good president as well that is the level of their intelligence.

– KEITH BEVERLEY, Gillingham Dorset,

Keith thinks it started as an internet rumour. Does this make him a “Poor demented fool”?

Okay, that’s enough. I am shocked by the level of ignorance there. If I was brand new to 9/11 truth and I read these comments, it would hardly be worth my while investigating the evidence because it is obvious which side has the critical thinkers, not to mention over 1,500 architects and engineers in support.

This matters immensely. Major wars and restrictions on our freedom are the products of these attacks.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to The astonishing ignorance of people who believe the official 9/11 story

  1. English Viking says:


    BJ’s gonna love this one.

  2. Mad Morgan says:

    How many people would it take to carry out such a conspiracy? How many of them have blabbed? How often do such large conspiracies stay secret?

    If you want to keep something secret then the fewer people that know about it the better – ideally no one at all. Best yet if you tell no one that there is a secret to be kept in the first place.

  3. Stewart Cowan says:


    It will be interesting to see if BJ actually debates or just calls me a “9/11 denier” again and waffles on in that vein.

  4. Stewart Cowan says:

    Mad Morgan,

    Welcome. Many people would say that this conspiracy is not a secret. These operations are carried out on a need-to-know basis, so most people involved don’t get to know the whole story.

  5. robbo says:

    What is there to debate with you, Stewart? As usual you print NO topics of debate. I call you an idiot, a sucker, a delusional fool. Print something we can debate on and maybe we can have a debate.

  6. Stewart,

    Pardon me for asking if it already exists in your blog archive…

    Do you have or will you please write a single straightforward account of exactly what you believe happened on 9/11 (including who did what and why)?

    I’d be interested to be able to read a well-written, one-post overview of your 9/11 position.

    As you know, we agree over most of the themes we both blog about – but we disagree over 9/11. I’m open to persuasion over 9/11; my position is not set in stone. As one who so often values your opinion, I think a really thoroughly written (and sourced) and cloesly argued blog overview from you on 9/11 would be worthy of serious consideration. And you could then really get down to it with your enemies on a thread.

    As I said, excuse me if you’vr already written such an overview.

  7. Stewart Cowan says:

    I wouldn’t call you those things, Robbo, because maybe it isn’t your fault that you cannot read. I clearly said that this post is to,

    draw your attention to the quality of comment from these people who, for whatever reason, believe the government over the evidence of their own senses.

    I have written on the evidence of 9/11 many times before. E.g. type ‘WTC7′ into the search box and you’ll get some results.

    This post was different: to try to examine what makes these government believers tick.

    Like these assorted sillies on the Daily Mail, you, Robbo, have just misunderstood then gone on the attack using the name-calling technique.

    Maybe you fear what you don’t understand?

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Richard,

    That’s not a bad idea. I intended writing in smaller sections: Building 7; the Pentagon; Shanksville, etc. But there will be more posts on the matter in the next few days, God willing.

    If a hurdle to believing this is that the government wouldn’t kill thousands of their own, well I think they would. I mean, look what has been done deliberately to destroy the morals and economies of the West.

    You probably know there are about 800,000 abortions a year in the USA – that’s like a 9/11 every 36 hours.

    The US sent thousands of black men to their deaths in the Tuskegee experiment (syphilis).

    I don’t know if you have heard of Operation Gladio, the postwar agenda in Europe lasting a few decades (maybe still going) where government agencies carried out terrorist attacks to blame them on opposition.

  9. I’m a political activist; I’m well-versed in conspiracy as a concept and a reality – past and present, and on various scales; I even have personal experience of definite conspiracies, in addition to plenty of exposure to the generally dirty business of politics in a ‘democracy.’

    So I don’t dispute the principle that the US Government is willing and able to engage in dirty deeds in the pursuit of its agenda, however I do specifically doubt that the US establishment conspired in 9/11 – I think that highly improbable – at the same time as I doubt that any such conspiracy would even have been viable to plan and implement without failure/exposure.

    I genuinely doubt that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US establishment, at the same time as I can see merit in various questions which are either unanswered or which have never been answered satisfactorily (thus rendering the answers beyond dispute).

    I think that 9/11 (and the 9/11 conspiracy theories) has to be viewed in the wider context of global islamic jihad in the few years before and the ten years since… the attacks in London, Madrid, Bali etc.

    I think the commonly posited conspiracy theorists’ motive for US establishment complicity in 9/11 of its being a justification for a ‘war on terror’ – i.e. for justifying the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq – is particularly weak.

    If US strategists were plotting to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, for whatever reason – oil, geopolitics or whatever – I do not think that in looking for a pretext they’d have come up with ‘Why don’t we commit a mega-atrocity in New York, make it look like it was mid-east muslims, and then we can do what we want?’

    The US is currently the world’s only superpower; the US can unilaterally do what it wants, when it wants, and it doesn’t need anybody else’s approval – not the UN, nobody. The US does not need pretexts for doing what it wants, and even if it does find pretexts expedient in certain instances, I’m sure they could’ve come up with a much easier and less murderous event for a pretext than 9/11.

    So in view of several unquestioned major jihadi attacks in various countries in recent years – in which nobody suggests any US Government complicity – and in view of the fact that the US Government did not need the 9/11 atrocity as a pretext for invading either Afghanistan or Iraq, I find the whole idea of a US Government conspiracy rather far-fetched.

    [Of course, maybe 9/11 did prove to be an expedient pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq, but that was policy planning after the event – that was pragmatically exploiting an opportunity; it does not mean that the US establishment planned 9/11 in the first place, even if they did exploit it afterwards.]

    That’s my view, but I’m willing to listen to yours and possibly to revise my own if you convince me otherwise.

  10. robbo says:

    Well, Stewart, accusing me of name calling and saying I am illiterate within the course of a few sentences is a bit rich, don’t you think?
    You did say this”It will be interesting to see if BJ actually debates or just calls me a “9/11 denier” again and waffles on in that vein.” and that is what I was referring to.
    For once I agree with RC, you need to write what you think actually happened and why, how and who. Provide supporting evidence and refutations of all the debunking that has already been done. Small instalments would be best so that we can thoroughly examine each and every point.
    Exactly the same applies to your rejection of modern science.

  11. Stewart Cowan says:


    I’m sorry. When you called me “an idiot, a sucker, a delusional fool,” I didn’t realise you were being nice.

    But yeah, I will try to post the evidence bit by bit.

    Exactly the same applies to your rejection of modern science.

    Erm, no. By embracing modern science it is easier to debunk the Victorian ideas of Charles Darwin.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:

    You make some sensible points, Richard and I can see your point of view, but there are far too many inconsistencies for my liking – far, far too many. None of it adds up, really, from the way the buildings came down to the characters involved (e.g. Bush and bin Laden family ties; Osama a CIA asset; bin Ladens only ones allowed to fly in the aftermath) to the share dealing to the warnings that were received (and ignored) from other countries (and Alex Jones!) to the many testimonies (of bombs in the buildings, etc.) ignored by the 9/11 Commission to the clearing of the debris before it could all be analysed and so much more.

  13. English Viking says:


    You are not a political activist.

    Please stop it.

  14. English Viking says:

    Anyone who thinks that there own Gov wouldn’t kill them at a drop of the hat, if it suited there purpose, is probably perfectly safe.

  15. English Viking says:

    ‘Their’, not ‘there’, obviously.

  16. Ian says:

    “Evidence and facts to people like this are obviously an inconvenience. They think they are to be considered right for no other reason than they say so”


    I’m still waiting for Stewart to explain who’s behind all these conspiracies he believes he’s uncovering and what their motivation is. Even if there weren’t masses of inconsistencies in the “Truthers'” claims- and even more evidence for what actually happened- the motivations of the shady cabal who supposedly planned and instigated the attack are so poorly defined that they make no sense at all.

  17. English Viking says:


    Do you really think some Paki in a cave directed 9/11?

    Rag-heads are not terribly famous for their logistical skills.

    PS I know OBL was Saudi. Paki is a generic term for all this kind of filth.

  18. Stewart Cowan says:


    I have to disagree; Richard is a political activist.

  19. I certainly am a political activist.

    I have to say I find Viking’s equating ‘Paki’ with ‘filth’ rather too near to the knuckle. I know he likes to be deliberately provocative, but his last sentence is certainly not to my liking.

    Well Stewart, your enemies are baying for your blood on this thread. I hope for your sake that you’ve got something good up your sleeve. Make it good and don’t rush it.

    If anybody wants a bit of light relief then you might like the following Carvath conspiracy theory:

    Apparently I’m now in league with the vice trade…

  20. Isitfoggy says:

    384 votes does not a political activist make.

    Just remember Richard – the more you deny it the stronger the conspiracy grows!

    Your apparent addiction to porn and young girls in you blog doesn’t really help your case.

  21. English Viking says:


    It may surprise yo to know that I do not order my life in order to comply with your lunatic preferences.


    If you mean Richard’s delusions of grandeur sometimes allow him a public forum to prove his own stupidity, I’d agree. If you mean he is some kind of politician, he obviously is not.

    He has no office, not even that of a Parish Councillor, he has no following (the odd drongo from his ‘church’ doesn’t count’), he has absolutely NO chance of ever getting elected, even though he regularly claims it’s just a matter of time until he becomes an MP, PM even. He made an idiot of himself at the last election, losing his deposit. He’ll lose the next one, and the next one too.

    His ‘research’ of porn stars, porn sites and prostitutes is a sad veil for his own loneliness.

    The man is delusional. Don’t encourage him, it’s not helping him. It will only make him worse.

  22. No politically-informed intelligent person would conclude other than that it was a good result (and that I am what I am). Anyway, it’s time to save Scotland…

  23. Isitfoggy says:

    And on the page linked above I can see three tits. Two more than usual.

  24. Stewart Cowan says:

    There’s a post coming up about that, Richard.

  25. English Viking says:


    I just spat beer on my keyboard. That was a good one!

  26. English Viking says:

    I really can’t wait until ‘The Richard Carvath guide to homopervuality’ is published!

    Will you autograph a copy for me Richard?

  27. bjedwards says:

    Did anyone notice the 10-year old strawman Stewart set up?

  28. English Viking says:


    No, pray tell.

  29. bjedwards says:

    I’ll wait to see if anyone here is astute enough to see it, EV.


    Here’s that handy information sheet for right-thinking Scots everywhere.

    Save marriage! Save Scotland!

  31. bjedwards says:

    It’s always interesting, Richard, that those who make the claim that “The true definition of marriage as a union of one man and one woman must be safeguarded at all costs” are hopelessly incapable of coming up with any rational reasons why. Other than to preserve religious myths, that is.

  32. Stewart Cowan says:

    You don’t have much to say, BJ. Is that because you are afraid of sounding like one of these Mail readers? (As you have done on previous threads with your “denier” stuff.)

    What I “set up” here was a glimpse into the psyche of people who don’t think for themselves, but are convinced they are right regardless.

  33. john Leon says:

    bjedwards, at the risk of inflaming your ire, the western civilisations concepts of justice are based on myths, true I am afraid, the notion of intent is one not well explained to many people, it comes from the New Testament but as I read that your understanding of the subject of the New Testament is that it is a myth, although a certain court appearence in front of Pontius Pilate is very well documented in Roman Empire scrolls, I wont go any further but to say in the empires, before, during and after, a Marriage was always considered a union between man and woman. Homosexuality was well known, indeed the Spartican soldiers, if memory serves me correctly were male couples, passionately in love who would fight to the death in battle because of this passion and had an enviable reputation because of this, however there is absolutely no records to show that any of these or other male couples were ever married. To have offspring outside of this agreement tended to be frowned upon, not neccessarily for moral reasons but because the act was recognised as a legal state between a heterosexual couple in the eyes of the law. Times change and now this state of exclusitivity is being threatened by goups who believe that the physical impossibility of a male having childbirth should have nothing to do with marriage, well I suppose you can argue that coal is a better fuel than highly refined petrol for a Formula 1 racing car, but it’s not going to cut any ice with those in the sport who matter, because it is entirely missing the point……

  34. Isitfoggy says:

    465 civil partnerships last year. 465 x 2 = 930 people, 546 more than voted for Richard Carvath at the last election.

    Richard, face up to your complete lack of popularity you homophobic little prick. And I mean that quite literally, LITTLE.

    Why on earth do you think publishing such bigoted dross will get you elected?

  35. Stewart Cowan says:


    “I suppose you can argue that coal is a better fuel than highly refined petrol for a Formula 1 racing car,”

    Love it.

  36. Stewart Cowan says:


    Is Richard bigoted or telling the truth? What if telling the truth means you need to appear bigoted? Should truth be suppressed in case anyone feels offended?

    Don’t know if all the references to ‘homopervuals,’ etc is helpful in changing minds, even if it is accurate.

  37. English Viking says:


    You seem to be able to think for yourself, but then you spoil it with the word ‘bigot’.

    That Richard is a tit is indisputable. That he is wrong on the matter of arse-bandits is not.

    Homophobia is all bollox.

    I don’t fear pooftahs; I pity them.

  38. Nobody’s stopping you from standing in a General Election Isitfoggy. Why don’t you try standing as an Independent candidate and see how well you do?

    I’m pleased with the result I got from my first attempt for several reasons. Next time I’ll have money to spend as well as other resources to deploy which were not available to me for the 2010 Salford and Eccles campaign.

    If you give it a go you will find that standing for Parliament is quite a life-changing milestone in your life. Running for Parliament is a very demanding challenge – especially for a first-timer unfunded indy. It is a ‘rite of passage’ and then some. Political candidates grow tremendously with the testing of their character, intellect and endurance in a General Election contest.

    Talking about coming last or losing your deposit as a bad thing is complete bollocks for most candidates (unless they’re a major party candidate in which case it is bad news).

    In my first contest I was one of eight candidates on the list and I was the only Independent. Six of the eight were first-time parliamentary candidates. Of the six first-timers, four of us polled under 5% of the vote and therefore lost our £500 deposits. A lot of people like to talk about politics… we actually walked the walk and went for it.

    Seven out of the eight were always going to lose in a contest where there can only be one winner. So there’s no shame in losing. My result for a first time unfunded indy in such a fiercely fought high-profile contest between eight candidates was really quite good. And I polled more votes than many other parliamentary candidates across the country in the 2010 General Election. So sorry but you can’t mock me on my result; it was a perfectly good result in the circumstances of Salford and Eccles 2010.

    The irony of General Elections is that the most decent candidates are usually the least likely to be lucky enough to be riding a major party ticket and are therefore less likely to win… but they stand any way, because they are principled people who genuinely believe in what they stand for and offer to the electorate. The minor candidates are often the real heroes.

    Remember, in my contest, Salford and Eccles, expenses robber Hazel Blears won – despite being loathed by literally tens of thousands of people – simply because mindless red brand supporters went out and voted red just as they always do in Salford no matter what. (And also because Hazel had pots of money to spend on campaigning and the lion’s share of the contest’s media coverage.) But anybody who says that Hazel Blears either deserved to win or was the best candidate is frankly a bloody idiot.

    Hazel’s 2010 campaign spent over £17,000 on the win. Next time I go for it, I look forward to campaigning with that sort of a serious war chest, as well as having various other big helps which were not in place the first time.

    If you give it a go you might form a new respect for parliamentary candidates – whether you agree with their politics or not.

  39. Isitfoggy says:

    I have no desire to run for parliament. I am not an attention seeking individual.

    I am however intelligent enough to see that issuing “information sheets” like you have just done would make me completely unelectable. This is what you fail to see. People don’t want extremist politics in this country. If you had any political awareness you would realise this.

    You are not a hero for being a minor candidate. You are deluded and unelectable. And you want respect for that? Get in the real world.

    I know I’m wasting my time trying to make you see sense, but I feel sorry for you.

  40. Isitfoggy says:

    Stewart, EV,

    We will have to agree to disagree on our views on homosexuality. However, using made up words that don’t exist in our language does not help. Remove the word bigoted from my post, but “dross” I think you will agree is still correct. There are far more eloquent ways of putting your case.

  41. The traditional definition of marriage is not an extreme social/political position.

    People do not stand for Parliament as a way of seeking attention (the odd exception aside). If you think that’s a motive for going through the ordeal [yes, I said – the ordeal] of a General Election then I can tell you you’re very much mistaken. In my contest there were no celebrity wannabes or raving loony joke candidates; all eight of us were serious about the various political views we stood for. I would advise against anybody who is not serious about politics standing in a General Election as you’d probably get the shock of your life, doing it out of some insincere or silly motive, such as for a publicity stunt, and end up looking very foolish indeed.

    Stewart (and readers),

    I apologise for using a poor choice of word in my previous comment (which your mod facility picked up). I will refrain from using it again. Sorry for lowering the tone.

  42. Stewart Cowan says:

    Richard – I don’t know why your post was held for moderation. I don’t think ‘bloody’ is on the naughty list.

    Foggy – As Richard says, it isn’t extremist to view marriage only as a union between a man and a woman. Unless you think that every culture in history has been extremist…!

  43. English Viking says:


    Perhaps is was the other ‘b’ word? He should be more creative with his spelling in order to avoid the mod-bot.

  44. bjedwards says:

    I see John Leon is even more confused than Stewart Cowan and Richard Carvath.

    Let’s be clera about fundamental logic. The individual choices of a man and a woman to get married are in no way affected nor diminished by the individual choices of a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman.

    As we’ve seen, logic, reason, and critical thinking are foreign concepts to Stewart and others here. You need to catch up.

  45. bjedwards says:

    Stewart Cowan whined:

    “You don’t have much to say, BJ.”

    I’ve already shown that you cannot support your own claims, Stewart. The fact that you don’t like being called what you are – a denialist – is a problem only you can solve.

    There is nothing I have to do. The burden of proof remains on your shoulders, as it always has for you 9/11 Deniers, to support your claims and bring positive evidence to the table. That fact that no 9/11 “Truther” has in the ten years since 9/11 and that you are left repeating the same unsupported claims year after year leaves you in a hopeless position, unable to accomplish anything. It’s even more laughable that you are a newbie at this.

  46. john Leon says:

    bjedwards, you may repeat your purported logic until you are blue in the face, Marriage is a word that expressly means a union between man and woman, period, look it up in any serious dictionary, any other combinations of persons might make partnerships but not a marriage. Just because you seem to find this difficult to comprehend in some way does not alter the actuality of this.

  47. bjedwards says:

    Well, John Leon, you’re left with your own strawman unable to address the fact that you cannot give any rational reason why you should limit the rights of other human beings.

  48. john Leon says:

    Well, bjedwards, this has nothing to do with strawmen OR limiting the rights of other human beings, ultimately the way to limit the rights of human beings is either by force, usualy force of Law or by stifling debate, in no way have I denied the rights of one group of peoples rights over another or stifle debate. All I have done is point out that in the constuct of the English language certain printed and spoken words have specific meanings and at present, the word Marriage has a precise and singular meaning, a bit like the symbol PII has a singular meaning in refernce to mathematics. The debate that surrounds same sex partners is deliberately blurred by the non relevant use of this word which in turn belittles the maturity and tone of the subject.

  49. isitfoggy says:


    “Foggy – As Richard says, it isn’t extremist to view marriage only as a union between a man and a woman. Unless you think that every culture in history has been extremist…!”

    Sorry, I’ve not explained myself well enough. It is not extremist to view marriage as a union between a man and a women. Point taken.

    However, compare Richard’s (dis)information sheet that is homophobic (and like or not there are laws against this), has no supporting data for the facts and figures presented (and reads more like a conspiracy theory because of this – which makes this comment almost on topic), is extreme in its tone and content etc. to your latest blog post that is well written and makes a coherent argument.

    I could see your reasoned logic put forward by a real politician but Richard’s far right ramblings (not just on homosexuals) would never be used by anybody in politics. Can you imagine an MP in the houses of parliament using the “HP” phrase so loved by Richard? No, because they have some political nous not to commit career suicide which Richard has done on many occasions before he has even started. Does he not realise that the internet never forgets?

    Stewart, I suggest you stand in place of Richard at the next election. I might not agree with some of your beliefs, but I would at least listen to you and expect reasoned debate in return.


  50. bjedwards says:

    While john leon looks up the definition of “marriage” and finds out he has it completely wrong, a little education for the blinkered denialist, Stewart Cowan:

    “9/11 and the Science of Controlled Demolitions”

    Wednesday, September 7th, 2011
    eSKEPTIC, the email newsletter of the Skeptics Society

    “Is there any scientific validity to the claims of 9/11 controlled demolition conspiracists about the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings?

    “This Sunday marks the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center Buildings. 9/11 conspiracists such as Richard Gage (a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth) continue to assert that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition. In this week’s eSkeptic, we present Chris Mohr’s thorough analysis of the controlled demolition theory, based on his debate with Richard Gage earlier this year.”

    continued at:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>