Things aren't that simple.

The less expensive things long term are more expensive to start and harder.

The easier things short term have costs later.

Your two lists simply don't jive with reality.

Actually, free trade has created absolutely gigantic problems.

Ask him politely. If that doesn't work, call the police.

Instead of face bashing, maybe he'll key your car, let the air out of the tires, or something like that.

Anyway, I think you'd be more effective at annoying him if you played a soundtrack in a language he can understand. That will force his attention away from what he's doing.

I personally disagree with the direction the criticism is taking here.

There is nothing worse than an artist who feels compelled by the public to satisfy the least common denominator. Real art is from the heart and mind of the artist, and his world, harnessing his inner human condition, his specific talents, and so on.

What about neighbors who engage in badger huggings?

In general, only those who can pay for it.

So did anybody watch any of the recommendations found herein?

Investigative journalism is not what conspiracy theorists do. If only conspiracy theorists would engage in investigative journalism.

As for your last two paragraphs: The mocking of conspiracy theories is not due to the simplistic argument you've stated. Read the article I posted.

What needs to be said in this thread has essentially been said.

What is your opinion of greengrocers' apostrophes?

It is not correct to use an apostrophe to indicate that a word is in the plural form.

Plural example: I can't stand all the fees I have to pay.

Singular possessive form: The fee's due date is tomorrow.

Plural possessive form: All the fees' due dates are tomorrow.

Contraction form of a single fee combined with the word 'is': Paying this fee's going to kill me.

Don't be the one holding the bag, so to speak.

The only way to make it work is if others, not part of the game, are momentum followers. In other words, your gang would be the catalyst to break resistance, which brings in the momentum players.

You really have to stop with this garbage. Instead of actively seeking out the outlandish crap produced by those who have an agenda to both absorb conspiracy material because they already believe it and manufacture it as well, what you should do, if you had any common sense at all, is seek to verify it or refute it. Don't you think, that if you actually attempted to start verifying or refuting, you would actually find something worthwhile out?

You can and should do some of your own homework here. You can verify or refute your above claim. Two ways to do it: find information out there on the Internet which refutes it, or physically go find these people and talk to them. You're not bothering to do method number 1, and you won't do method number 2. Otherwise, you're accomplishing nothing but rubbing the backs of other nuts, and convincing nobody else. So what's the point? Do some real research, instead of reposting the ravings of other nuts. That's not how the truth is discovered. Be a skeptic of your own beliefs for a day, and actively attempt to refute a claim such as the one you just made, and then I think your tune will change.

Also, not only is their no evidence his pinky is missing, there are very clear photos showing his pinky is not missing (on left hand).

What about emergency response teams, paramedics, fire departments, police forces, local and state and university, dispatchers, event planners, marathon runners, spectators, office workers in the buildings, all the media organizations (CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, newspapers, magazines), investigative reporters, residents in Watertown, gas station owners where the hijacked man escaped, insurance companies, the boat owner, your supposed crisis actors, hospital personnel, the wounded, mortuaries and funeral planners, funeral attendees...

Now the story is changing. Was it staged? Or was it real, but perpetrated internally? If the latter, than all the footage of actors, missing signs, etc. is pointless.

I didn't see any poor acting, nor do I think I saw acting at all. I saw what looked like some extremely dazed and confused people who just experienced a chaotic event. I didn't see any lousy props. I watched the video about 15 times very carefully.

I also don't know the exact dynamics of what happens to clothing when an explosion happens. If you do, as you seem to think, then no doubt there are other people who know as well, and I'm quite certain they would have been consulted to create the proper 'effects' and not improper effects. Thus, it is reasonable to assume you have no case with regard to the clothing you're seeing.

When you can, please explain all the parties that would need to be involved and mum about the whole thing.

And your position? Consider the following question being asked of you:

Official story has holes, conspiracy theory has more holes, ergo official story must be true?

The conspiracy theory just isn't plausible at all given the sheer number of disparate and participating parties necessary for cooperation. It just defies all imagination.

Ergo, official story must be true.