Slightly off topic but -
I have to deal with conspiracy theorists everyday, ranging from 9/11, Illuminati, The Federal Reserve, Obama, A4V, Big Oil, Big Media, Big Pharma, big tobacco big orange juice etc.

A Few Incoherent rambling points:

1) Most conspiritards use the 'wake up sheeple' 'ignorant bliss' 'blind to the truth' etc, after you disagree with a poorly written webpage with no evidence that just doesn't make sense. The hilarious thing is most of these tools sucker down everything anyone like alex jones / any other random webpage yet claim that anything that doesn't agree with them is been forced down your throat by the government and mass media - Hypocrites.

2) I love debating but you can't get through to these people, blindly ignorant to facts that they don't want to believe

3) The whole 'Use our previous unproved points as evidence in new ones'

4) Surely the burdon of proof is on whoever is challenging a claim? example, If I don't agree with something, its up to me to challenge it rather than saying 'I say its fucked, you prove that its not and until then its true'

Edit: Could've worded that better ^, I meant the onus is on the conspiracy people to prove

5) Alex jones is a tool, but hes a very very clever one. Disable adblock on infowars and cry about how you didnt think of this idea before: 47 adverts / referall links on one site. and check out the advertisements page

" Forms of advertising we offer:
Custom web banners on our family of popular website
Personal endorsements by Alex Jones LIVE on the radio show
Long Form Sponsor Interviews "

5.5) cant show this now as it's gone, but a few week ago on infowars something along the lines off 'Our advertising offers well place text links that are indistinguishable from news stories'. - nice, that does loads for his credibility, also, the main link on his website was to www.cancertruth.net/
(Federale, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 16:25, 6 replies)

You're wrong about burden of proof -
it's on whoever is making a claim. What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. If I make a claim, the burden of proof is on me to prove it. If I can't, you can dismiss it without having to supply proof. Hence why 'God exists because you can't prove he doesn't' is a stupid argument. The burden of proof is on those who claim God exists, not on those who claim he doesn't.
( Bob Todd whee, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 17:47, closed)

wires crossed
Thats what I was saying dude, could've worded it a little better to be honest, I meant like my claim is that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, if you want to challenge that the burdon of proof is on the challenger.

I think thats right - "The burden of proof is on those who claim conspiracies exists, not on those who claim they doesn't."
(Federale, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 17:59, closed)

Surely the burden of proof is on everyone then.

(Seance Trumpet has got no beef with a man enjoying a croissant, Tue 1 Sep 2009, 19:52, closed)

an easier way to put this is
extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
(MostlySunny, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 12:48, closed)

good stuff
I like that phrase, you're right would be a lot simpler.
(Federale, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 15:26, closed)

Alex Jones also advertised that number plate spray
To make flashes bounce off your number plate, disguising the letters. It doesn't work.
( Methylene Blue - electrohead, Wed 2 Sep 2009, 12:57, closed)