Comment: Most people won't care about

(See in situ)

Most people won't care about

Most people won't care about (A) if they think they are doing their part to help bring a criminal to justice. If one of these individuals can be shown that the police provided little to no evidence that the person they were looking for was the actual person, then the people feel as though their generosity was violated.

While, I would prefer if people would waken to an (A) argument; in my experience those people are far and few in-between. Granted, people don't hear a conspiracy and say, "you know, your right." Usually, the conspiracy talk is the seed which allows the individual to look at the next situation with different glasses, or even the on going situation if the story constantly changes.

Personally, I know four people who have woken due to the Boston bombing conspiracies. Just for the fact that the official story doesn't seem to fit the facts as well as some of the conspiracies -even if the conspiracies don't fit the facts 100%.

The problem may also be related to the Right-Brain, Left-Brain types of people.

This whole situation of what seems like a purge of the more controversial conspiracy theorists reminds me of a documentary I was watching on the history of the gay rights movement. In the beginning the people who came out in favour of gay rights were those who were the extremists -the most vocal, the loudest, and the most controversial of gay people. As they got headway over the years, some less-controversial people started to get involved. As the movement began gaining momentum, more and more non-controversial people joined up and started to say that the originators -the extremely controversial people had to go.

As the movement phased the most outspoken and controversial people out of the movement, what one could see courtesy of hind-sight is that the most controversial people gained more ground in a shorter amount of time then their less controversial counterparts.

I believe the urge to get rid of that which we think is a hindrance is due to our belief that we are extremely close to a major goal and that other people will not take us seriously if we don't rid ourselves of the most extreme of the conspiracy theorists.

This seems to be the case in every major movement, and they all seemed to stagnate once they purged their movement. I believe it is because the extremist keep the fire burning the hottest, which motivates everybody else to continue doing what they are doing for the cause.

For us, it would be that the louder the conspiracy theorists are the more attention the movement gets, the more attention the movement gets the more exposure the less conspiratorial people -within the movement- receive and the more they have an opportunity to hit the nay sayers with the logical argument.

Also, the more we argue amongst ourselves, the better our message -and argument skills- become; this is an asset not a deficit.

If I were to design a method to work with, what I would do would be to put out the most controversial people to run wild -mainly on the internet, trying to get as many people to see and hear those people, then I would introduce far less controversial versions locally. Once it hit the big time and the MSM has to try and debunk the movement, I would put someone like you -Michael- out in-front of the camera to use a more eloquent logical argument on them. This would be the ultimate methodology, because it would target the three major types of people and in the final stage it would debunk the debunkers of the movement.

The first stage: The highly controversial people -would attract attention, plant seeds, and fuel the fires to fight the system
The Second Stage: The less controversial topics and theories -would further
plant seeds as well as more deeply root the earlier seeds.
The Third Stage: The Eloquent and logical argument -would bring firmly root the two previous stages of planted seeds while planting yet even more seeds. It would also, allow the right person to destroy those who try to debunk or derail the movement, thereby enhancing the movement even further.

While it is listed in three stages, it starts out at stage one, and then incorporates stage two and then incorporates stage three; non of the previous stages should be ended for the simple fact that there are 7 billion people on the planet. Once each stage was initiated it wouldn't cease and once all three stages were initiated, then they all would continue until the world woke-up. At least that is how I would do it if I was setting up a movement.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while I know it is your site and you will do what you want with it, if it was up to me I wouldn't get rid of the most controversial people just because they were the most controversial people. I think the controversial people force everybody else to do more work than most people would do otherwise. I think the controversial people enhance everybody's argument skills, and like it or not, the most controversial people due attract more attention; it would therefore be incumbent upon us all to steer the cameras to the more logical arguments when they -the news media- want a quote or an interview.

Just my thoughts on the matter.