@earl said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296814) said:
@tiger5150 said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296804) said:
@earl said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296802) said:
@tiger5150 said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296797) said:
@earl said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296794) said:
@tiger5150 said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296770) said:
@gallagher said in [Conspiracy theories](/post/1296749) said:
Mistrust of the NRL media is displayed here on a daily basis but I don't see those posters being labelled as having mental issues.
I know you are being humorous but its actually a pretty good example of my point. We dont trust the NRL media, we think they have an agenda and this distrust spills into trust of the actual NRL organisation. Additionally, here, other forums, social media etc, how many times have you seen a reference to Nick Politis playing golf, sombreros etc? The end result is that there is a pretty widely held view that there is an NRL conspiracy to assist a handful of clubs whereas if there was integrity and trust in both the NRL media and following on the organisation, this theory could quite possibly be seen as a wild conspiracy theory (It probably is).
To me this shows the issue with conspiracy theorists and how they get it so wrong. I distrust the media. I don't though go and create loony tunes theories with no facts.
It's like they double down on stupidity. They don't go the other way and mistrust the media and wait until facts come out. They make stuff up and believe information with no facts at all.
I've still yet to see an argument that it is not a mental health issue. It shows a lack of ability to accept reality. I'm not talking about opinions because these aren't opinions. **To have an opinion to me requires an acceptance of facts and then you can debate an opinion based on the facts.**
Irony, thy name is Earl
I don't see the irony at all. Happy to discuss. Maybe via PM because that might be easier.
Mate I went 47 rounds with you the other night with literally the highest level of facts possible (peer reviewed scientific research publications) and wouldnt accept these facts in debating an opinion. That is the irony.
I think its unlikely anything will change if we do it again so I suggest we spare the good people the boring and unedifying spectacle of Earl v 5150 II.
Thank you! Thank you for exactly proving my point about you, facts and (delicious) irony!
I don't want to go into this but ***you honestly aren't being honest at all here***. ***You didn't even provide peer reviewed papers***. I mean ***you keep stating this like you believe it but it's simply not true***. I read them and they weren't peer reviewed papers.
Ok, so facts? **Im** not being honest? I didnt provide peer reviewed papers? I state it like I believe it but Im lying?
This is what I posted to you 3 days ago.

I'll add this so hopefully the peer reviewed nonsense stops:-
This is a peer review article:- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4797993/
These aren't:- https://www.nature.com/news/us-suspends-risky-disease-research-1.16192
https://www.nature.com/news/engineered-bat-virus-stirs-debate-over-risky-research-1.18787
Ok, so let me get this straight.......
To prove I am ***lying*** about posting peer reviewed scientific publications and that I dont know what peer reviewed publications are (I have AQF Level 8 Scientific qualifications from Uni Melb and read peer reviewed research every day for my job), you list as an example of a peer reviewed publication, ***the same peer reviewed article that I posted to you*** as supporting my point??
Ok you are either one of the best trolls Ive encountered here or anywhere, or you are a special kind of special.
I recently read a post here where someone said *"To have an opinion to me requires an acceptance of facts and then you can debate an opinion based on the facts."* **IRONICALLY** I agree with this poster and its clear that a debate is impossible with you.
Lets give everyone else a break.