bup, if you do start a thread on the matter, I suggest that you begin by synopsizing what you think the case against Stratford is. The suggestion that a simple misattribution is claimed shows extreme confusion.
As you can see **bup **the issue here is that many of the ones following a conspiracy are not even wrong.
The issue here is in the context that even this obscure subject there is a tall order to fulfill regarding the extraordinary evidence that they need. And the subject here is that many also put his in the same column as things being considered conspiracy theories. As it has been pointed by many, these subjects reported here are not considered to have good support.
What the issue is why is that groups that look at pseudoscience and CTs already investigated the “controversy” of Shakespeare. The problem is that in this case there is even a denial that more capable people than just posters on a message board already did what they are demanding.
It’s the classic argument from authority. “9 out of 10 doctors recommend Smokies for that mild taste.”
*Darn it with the lack of time and running out of edit time too. Correcting that grammar crime against nature previous post of mine: *
What I’m trying to say **bup **is that it is not just the posters of the SDMB the ones that are coming overwhelmingly in support of declaring even this obscure Shakespeare subject as baloney.
There is a tall order for the proponents of an alternative theory, and they cannot just cavalierly ignore the old bit of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence”
And there is yet another layer of Meta analysis going on that is being denied here, **other **groups that look at pseudoscience and CTs already investigated the “controversy” of Shakespeare too. The problem for the CTs is that in this case there is even a denial that more capable people than just posters on a message board already did investigate the case against Stratford that the proponents of the CT are demanding here Ad nauseam.
I don’t believe that Oswald acted alone, even if he was the sole gunman.
I believe that Donna Rice was a Republican operative.
I believe that America’s sharing of intel with Brittan during the Falklands war was a result of a Reagan/Thatcher affair.
A few days before 9/11 there was a double page spread in a British newspaper about very tall buildings, so when the planes hit I knew how many people would be in each building, some of the companies that worked there, and how they would struggle to get out quickly.
Although not all employees turned up for work that morning; I believe quite a few of the ‘higher ups’ had made their excuses. The stories of airline stocks being shorted was something else I heard about. I doubt (very much) Bush knew about the attacks before they happened, but I suspect some people may have.
That would be…odd.
I don’t think the arguments I’ve heard against Shakespeare are good. But there’s no onus on me or any pro-Shakespearean to do that. It seems like you just want me to say what I think the arguments are so you can say those aren’t them.
Enough of this highjack. Here’s a thread.
I think I’m encouraged that a majority of respondents (so far at least) picked the industrial-grade horse shit option. Here’s some more about the Shakespeare bullhockey, by the way.
I’m counting 184 votes for conspiracies and 76 against. Granted many of the pro conspiracy people probably voted for multiple options, but there’s no evidence that a majority voted for “industrial grade horseshit.” (Which is the correct answer.)
The problem with the Pharma conspiracy is that there are many different groups of people involved at every step of testing including the FDA, independent Institutional Review Boards, statisticians, clinics and hospitals with their own review organizations, Clinical Data Monitors, etc. etc… So many people from so many different companies and government agencies are involved that the same arguments made about how difficult it would be to cover up the moon landing apply here; you simply couldn’t get them all to keep the secret.
I guess you could keep some things secret if you stopped before you even submitted your investigational new drug application which is required before any human testing can take place, but after that’s submitted the cat’s out of the bag.
I think it is funny that no one on this board thinks Obama is or was ever a Muslim.
The NSA keeps erasing the votes.
Oh, baloney. The ████ would never ██████ with us █████████ national ███ internally. You just █████████ because ██████ and you know it.
That used to be my thinking in regards to chemtrails, too big to cover up.
But recent revelations about NSA and other shenanigans make me wonder just what’s going on and who knows about it.
There is a new level of hell waiting for you because I will never be able to scrub that image from my brain. Curse you!
Rule 34 is a harsh mistress.
I have never thought he was Muslim.
Actually to be perfectly honest, religion isn’t something I look at in a politician unless they are trying to curtail my rights as a woman to the freedoms we have won over the years, or try to force the entire country into being whichever flavor they are [and I consider blue laws and any form of Sunday restriction to be illegal as they are based on the old Puritan laws which are restrictive Christianity.]
Thanks 
That’s like the anti-Stratford stuff and the Obama-was-born-in-Kenya stuff: there’s absolutely zero evidence, but if you turn your head sideways and squint your eyes just right, you can see what you’ve decided to see.
But those 184 aren’t actually votes for conspiracies (at least, mine isn’t). The way I’m reading it, the poll isn’t asking what conspiracies you solidly believe in; it’s asking which ones you think might possibly have something to them. Which is a whole different thing. I think Big Oil probably hasn’t suppressed the electric car, but I think there’s a possibility that it *might *have.
Pharma testing is often a matter of extreme subtlety, with results only measurably by sophisticated statistical analysis. I don’t have any problem believing that a drug trial could be managed along both publicly noted lines and virtually secret ones; the main team would be watching, recording and analyzing one set of data while the “real” team, which could be as small as two or three people, are looking at and analyzing other data.
This would not work in a drug’s final stages, but I’d bet good money a lot of routine re-tests and evaluations have hidden criteria and goals.
Whoa! He was responding to me, where I had noted the simple misattribution in the cases of Jeremiah Clarke and Leopold Mozart. In context, what bup said was completely valid and rational.