[MD] opposition to zeitgeist

[Ian Glendinning]

Woods, I did no such thing.

You raised David Icke (in his connection with zeitgeist) ... I simply
expressed amazement at a reference to Icke on MD (I know he's part of
it ... that's very old news)

I expressed no view one way or the other on zeitgeist itself - I said
my piece on that a couple of years ago when it was news. I explicitly
expressed amazement at the conspiracy theory processes in action.
Gobsmacked, lost for words. Nothing to debate.

Ian

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Woods Woods <woodswoods8 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ian,
>
>   You brought up David Icke as a dismissal point to
> any opposition of zeitgeist.  For if David Icke dismisses
> zeitgeist, well, then this opposition is low value for David
> Icke is not credible.  Well, if you knew that David
> Icke was also used as a source for zeitgeist what might
> you have thought.  I guess if I use your line of argumentation,
> then zeitgeist is not credible for David Icke contributed to
> zeitgeist.  So, that was pretty much your only line of
> argumentation that could have been a good foundation to
> ward off any opposition to zeitgeist and now I find
> David Icke is a contributor to zeitgeist so that pretty
> much rids your argument.  Sorry, come up with
> something more debatable:
>
>
> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm
>
>
>
> woods
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>