Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)
From: Eric Bohlman (ebohlman_at_omsdev.com)
Date: 10/19/04
- Next message: Eric Bohlman: "Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)"
- Previous message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: color of amur maples"
- In reply to: Byron Canfield: "Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)"
- Next in thread: PF Riley: "Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 19 Oct 2004 06:50:55 GMT
"Byron Canfield" <barnNOSPAM@NOSPAMbyronc.com> wrote in
news:3A%cd.282312$3l3.57006@attbi_s03:
> Simply labeling something a "conspiracy theory" does not any any way
> mean there is no conspiracy, despite your attempts to the contrary.
But when the theory in question requires that tens or hundreds of thousands
of people, many of whose interests oppose those of some of the others, all
be in on the conspiracy and none of them blab the secret, one has to
question the probability that it would succeed. All the successful
conspiracies that have ever been unmasked have involved relatively small
numbers of people. It's quite common knowledge that of all the ways to
protect a secret, the most fundamental one (without which none of the other
ways have any chance of working) is to strictly limit the number of people
who know it. The probability that even a few hundred people could keep the
same secret without one of them deliberately or inadvertently disclosing it
is infinitesimal.
- Next message: Eric Bohlman: "Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)"
- Previous message: Archimedes Plutonium: "Re: color of amur maples"
- In reply to: Byron Canfield: "Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)"
- Next in thread: PF Riley: "Re: Blatant CDC lie (pharma shill)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|