butterdezillion, I'm sorry if post #615 offended you, but it did not personally attack you or anyone else here. FR has rules against profanity and personal attacks but none that I am aware of against being snarky. What I was trying to convey is that I do think, quite frankly, that some of your theories are rather far-fetched. (For example, I honestly cannot conceive of all nine Supreme Court justices being threatened and not saying anything about it.) Having said all that, I genuinely did not mean to cause you any personal offense.
No offense taken. I was just trying to point out that politeness isn’t necessarily the same thing as engaging with the content.
You think the Soros stuff is far-fetched. I expected that there would be people who say that. That’s why a person has to be a bit tongue-in-cheek when they offer up a theory they can’t necessarily prove. A person has to be secure enough to put their reasoning out there and let people weigh it in their own minds.
I don’t think there’s any way this theory could be proven, unless the parties involved came forward with the stories.
That’s actually what happened to reveal the threats Soros had made on the media heads. Now when I go back and look at what was happening in the media circles at the time, looking for clues as to exactly when this happened, things that didn’t make sense before suddenly pop into focus.
Ridicule doesn’t really accomplish much, which is why I don’t have a whole lot of interest in it. If somebody can challenge my connections or conclusions by presenting logic or additional facts I consider that person to be a friend (after I pick myself up off the floor. lol). I want to test my theories. I expect some people to hear what I’ve said and walk as quickly as they can from me on the other side of the street. lol. It’s still disappointing because I’d rather find out what they see as the flaws so I gain perspective, but I do understand it and I’m not offended by it.