Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

[B <beeline AT mindspring.com>]

Jim wrote: 
> On Feb 15, 2005, at 11:45 AM, B wrote:
>> Now it's only the paranoid fringe who remember and are concerned with 
>> this gathering of power, and they are dismissed easily (as Jim has 
>> illustrated).
> 
> Hm, I guess I should have put this in all caps:
> "NOT THAT THE ENTIRE TOPIC SHOULD BE DISMISSED OUT OF HAND."
> 
> I'm simply saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary 
> evidence. And no, I haven't taken the time to go down the rabbit hole 
> and read 1000 web pages of this stuff. It'll sit in the back of my mind 
> along with a lot of other interesting/implausible propositions, and 
> I'll watch for patterns.
> 

I'm not saying that the claims are easy to dismiss, but that the fringe is -- 
often along with their claims. After all, back when it was obvious that the 
earth was flat, "round earthers" were easy to dismiss until someone proved 
their point.... Proof is necessary before one should get all hot and 
bothered, I agree with you about that, but lack of proof doesn't mean much. 
We have strong indications that the state of emergency was declared in 1933. 
If that meme were false, I imagine that this would show up in a Google 
search, too.

> 
>> "The press" is not a Magical Priesthood of Knowing Everything
> 
> I don't expect journalists to be any more long-sighted or principled 
> that the rest of us. And I agree with you that the best way to hide a 
> secret is to make it a mind-crushing bore to unravel. But I also 
> believe that ego at least will drive reporters to chase and uncover the 
> grand conspiracy theories, if they stand up to scrutiny.
> 

Reporter ego drives them to chase and uncover what they see as tomorrow's 
front page story. Editors are notorious for reining in gung-ho reporters hot 
on anything that doesn't pan out this week. It takes a NY Times or Washington 
Post to dedicate man-months to stories that may or may not be there, and 
papers of this caliber don't sell advertising based on tired theories that 
have been around so long there are funny movies about 'em.

Besides, who says it has to be a conspiracy? It would be far more plausible 
for it to be a situation that smart folks take advantage of, maybe even 
expand here and there, given an opportunity. Lacking public attention, it 
would just meander along like a snowball creeping down a lightly snow-dusted, 
gentle slope, slowly picking up mass -- but not so's you'd notice, in a 
lifetime.

> 
> In this case, don't you have to believe that the legal profession 
> (another bunch of hyper-disciplined foot soldiers;-) have all agreed to 
> never mention the ongoing state of emergency, even when it would give 
> them an edge in court? On this and other topics, I'm quite prepared to 
> be both wrong and astonished. In the meantime, I'll keep paying may 
> taxes with funny money and drinking the flouridated water.
> 

What sort of court case would call for this? We're talking about a span of 
over 70 years.... The obvious effects of one or more ongoing state(s) of 
emergency would not be concrete enough for folks to go skinning their knees 
on, so to speak.

Besides, shouldn't it be as easy to find information about the suspension of 
the SoE, if it were ended? At least as easy as it is to find information 
about its inception?

> But hey, I believe that acupuncture works. And I know what happened to 
> the streetcars. And I am certainly concerned about concentration of 
> power in the executive branch.
> 
>    =jimA=

http://edge.org/q2005/q05_print.html
("What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?")

~B



--
http://bholroyd.home.mindspring.com/

Only simple and quiet words will ripen of themselves.
     -- Tao Teh Ching