YCHTT, you have chosen to argue against things that I have not said. Indeed, you have even had to imagine what I might say about the Club of Rome in order to argue against it.
The truth - if you 'can handle it' - is that you string together one or two minor coincidences and present it as a big deal, leaving us all to speculate that there is some fantastic plot going on.
In reality, an old man died of a heart attack. You marked the thread as highly important and said so in your first post; you talked about an "amazing coincidence" and then said:
Quote:
|
In all likelihood, he had to be "eliminated", no doubt to push the wicked agenda of an elite hell bent on pushing humanity back into the dark ages.
|
Now, am I allowed to comment on that theory without being called a traitor, or blind, or stupid, or brainwashed?
My suggestions:
(1) Stop hyping your posts as the most important things ever.
(2) Stop implying that everyone who disagrees with your analysis is stupid or treacherous.
(3) Stop imagining what people might have said in order that you can slap it down and instead deal with what they have actually said.
(4) Stop filling your posts with tiresome distractions like the JFK assassination, clearly designed to drag readers onto a different territory where you can batter them with plenty of videos and links until they are bored rigid.