THEY DARE CALL IT "CONSPIRACY"
" conspiracy is perceived, with no other evidence available, it is more likely to be ineptitude or apathy than malice that results in the victimization of the victim."
In my experience and analysis, most conspiracy theories have supporting evidence...just no smoking gun. I've commented on this before. We also have information wars, and these include faux conspiracy theories, conspiracy fodder, and just plan old pransters. Heart♥GoldCry Like a little girl 00:49, 17 July 2007 (CDT)
I've been having a fun morning tracking this one down. Apparently my preferred rendering is likely good enough (it was apparently something he said out loud, reported by others.) I've also asked the Wikipedia Reference Desk and the Wikipédia Oracle - David Gerard (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Another one for the list:
I've noticed you consistently delete any and all criticism of this incredibly misguided razor. I just said what everybody was thinking when I added, "However, it's incredibly misguided, as it enables malicious people to feign stupidity (i.e. George W. Bush) and forgives dangerous stupidity. It's been said the opposite, "Never attribute to stupidity that which can adequately be explained by malice," is the razor we should be adopting, mainly to reduce stupidity - especially wilful stupidity - and to eliminate the possibility of feigning stupidity as a defence for malice. Most people actually agree, but would never say out loud, that malice should be assumed by default, and stupidity should only be considered once malice is ruled out."
- Furthermore, deleting rational criticism seems to be an ongoing pattern with you. My last experience with you guys was questioning why you called Vatican City a sovereign nation while Kent Hovind's dinosaur park was not, even though the religious leaders of both plots of land claimed their land to be sovereign, you seemed to favour Catholicism over whatever Hovind is. And you might say, "Well the government calls Vatican City sovereign," to which I would cite examples where you rejected the government's claims. I will grant that you're more accurate that Wikipedia, by longshot, and WAAAAY more accurate than Conservopedia (sp?), but you do seem to have your own fascist censorship policies to keep an official narrative in place like those other places do. You should change your name to FascistWiki.126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)