I’ve endured countless debates with people through a
number of social media outlets to which they seem to always end the same
goddamn way—with these idiots leaning on the mundane and the trivial, which
leads me to believe that their differing views had no merit to begin with.
Below is an example of one of these encounters:
THE IDIOT—Conspiracy theorists lie!
A.K. KUYKENDALL—Indeed!
THE IDIOT—Indeed what? It seems that you believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.
A.K. KUYKENDALL—My response of "indeed" was meant to concur with your statement that "Conspiracy Theorists Lie". From my perspective, it was a general statement and not one targeted towards me. However, now that I have an unfiltered understanding that your statement was targeted towards me; we can discuss.
I'm sure you know that opinions are like the nose on our faces, we all have one, yeah? You have referred to me as a conspiracy theorist where I have never. That, too, is a matter of opinion.
The word theory by definition is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be, i.e. the convoluted conundrum of the John F. Kennedy assassination. So if you read anything on the JFK assassination, you’re reading what you refer to as theory because every author approaches the assassination of President John F. Kennedy from a theoretical prospective.
Its endless these theories wouldn't you say, Mr. Idiot. Your reality doesn't trump that of mine or anyone else. The iconic program The Twilight Zone taught us this. My research is sound! What I believe you to be referring to is my approach to telling the tale.
The debate over what’s true and what’s false in literature is never ending, primarily due to the fact that all written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit is based on some truth. Like that of a surreptitious military operation, the goal of argumentative writing is to tactically persuade your audience that your ideas are valid beyond the method by which you’ve chosen to relay your story.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means of persuasion, appeals, into three distinct categories—Ethos, Pathos, Logos; to which we’ve all experienced throughout our lives albeit we may not have had a clue as to this strategic tactic playing out before us.
Examples of this are infinite—Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci’s Codex Atlanticus, George Orwell’s 1984, Milton William Cooper’s Behold A Pale Horse, Jack Finney’s The Body Snatchers, David Seltzer’s The Omen, H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds, Thomas Michael Keneally’s Schindler’s Ark, William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist, Richard Condon's The Manchurian Candidate, Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson’s The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Identity, Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters, Jules Gabriel Verne’s A Journey to the Center of the Earth, Erich von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods, not to mention the Conspirator’s Odyssey series to which I’m taking the liberty of weighing in. However unquestionably interminable these examples may be, all remain but the tiniest of pebbles dropped haphazardly into a massive basin of still water.
All of the aforementioned I make crystal clear within the AUTHOR'S NOTE of each manuscript I produce before the story gets underway for it is vital my audience see the connections in history that brought about such a bold hypothesis. With that out of the way, my friend, let us discuss specific examples of where 'it seems that I believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.' I'm a very busy man, but if the discussion is that which warrants my undivided attention; I'll be here to give clarity.
Shall we begin?
THE IDIOT—I think you mean eg, not ie. As for your view that, "Your reality doesn't trump that of mine or anyone else’s," it's complete nonsense. President Kennedy was murdered by Oswald, NASA landed men on the Moon, the Holocaust happened, 9/11 was not carried out by "The Government," etc. These are facts, not theories or opinions, and you need to realize the difference.
A.K. KUYKENDALL—I'm aware that i.e. and e.g. are both abbreviations for Latin terms. I.e. stands for id est and means roughly "that is." E.g. stands for exempli gratia, which means “for example.” And I'm wholly thankful that you pointed out this editorial opportunity on my behalf. However, Mr. Idiot, as I have never said that I was a conspiracy theorist; it is also the case that I've never claimed to be an editor. Your going there leads me to believe you'd rather focus on superfluous details rather than replying to me based on what I've asked:
"Let us discuss specific examples of where 'it seems that I believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.'"
Furthermore, what I believe to be complete nonsense, Mr. Idiot, is your belief that your reality trumps that of anyone else. President Kennedy being murdered by Mr. Oswald is not a fact, it's a theory that has been contemplated for over 50 year with no end in sight given the, I believe, purposeful approach of our government as it relates to facts they have seen fit to conceal. NASA landing men on the moon is a theory because it cannot be proven by you or I, but only speculated about based on information our government deems acceptable for our knowledge. Indeed the Holocaust was a real occurrence, but not in the way we the people have heard. What we have heard and have been allowed to become accustomed to the world over is nothing but an ingeniously forged marketing campaign designed by top military brass. And 9/11 not being carried out by the government, as well, cannot be proven by you or I, but only speculated about based on information our government deems acceptable for our knowledge, which places the happening firmly in the realm of theory not fact as you clearly proclaim.
Again, let us discuss specific examples of where 'it seems that I believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.' I'm a very busy man, but if the discussion is that which warrants my undivided attention; I'll be here to give clarity. I do hope that your follow up response falls in line with these parameters, sir.
THE IDIOT—I "went there" because I thought it was funny and it's not "my reality" that trumps everyone else's, its actual reality, which you deny. Why bother saying anything else when you are unwilling to accept that there is a factual reality outside our own feelings/ideas. If you don't believe that simple fact every other conversation is pointless.
A.K. KUYKENDALL—Mr. Idiot, you came to my page proclaiming that I'm a conspiracy theorist, which I believe you haven't read a word of what I've written in book form or above; only assumed as much from my posts. I in-turn have open the door for a discussion on my theories to which you have yet to provide specifics by which to debate. "Pointless”, is the act of reaching out to someone you are in disagreement with only to walk away without the person having an opportunity of expression. Also, I've never denied the points of reality. Give me an example, at least, of where I've denied reality? It's rare to correspond with an author on the points within his or her work. Imposing your reality, feelings, and ideals upon an artist is counterproductive to igniting a great discussion.
THE IDIOT—Conspiracy theorists lie, that's a fact, so get over it! As I've explained from the use of your own "logic," you totally agree with me because my opinion of reality says you do and you can't impose anything on me, right? LOL!
A.K. KUYKENDALL—Wow!
Again, I’ve endured countless debates with people through a number of social media outlets to which they seem to always end the same goddamn way—with these idiots leaning on the mundane and the trivial, which leads me to believe that their differing views had no merit to begin with.
THE IDIOT—Conspiracy theorists lie!
A.K. KUYKENDALL—Indeed!
THE IDIOT—Indeed what? It seems that you believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.
A.K. KUYKENDALL—My response of "indeed" was meant to concur with your statement that "Conspiracy Theorists Lie". From my perspective, it was a general statement and not one targeted towards me. However, now that I have an unfiltered understanding that your statement was targeted towards me; we can discuss.
I'm sure you know that opinions are like the nose on our faces, we all have one, yeah? You have referred to me as a conspiracy theorist where I have never. That, too, is a matter of opinion.
The word theory by definition is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be, i.e. the convoluted conundrum of the John F. Kennedy assassination. So if you read anything on the JFK assassination, you’re reading what you refer to as theory because every author approaches the assassination of President John F. Kennedy from a theoretical prospective.
Its endless these theories wouldn't you say, Mr. Idiot. Your reality doesn't trump that of mine or anyone else. The iconic program The Twilight Zone taught us this. My research is sound! What I believe you to be referring to is my approach to telling the tale.
The debate over what’s true and what’s false in literature is never ending, primarily due to the fact that all written works, especially those considered of superior or lasting artistic merit is based on some truth. Like that of a surreptitious military operation, the goal of argumentative writing is to tactically persuade your audience that your ideas are valid beyond the method by which you’ve chosen to relay your story.
The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means of persuasion, appeals, into three distinct categories—Ethos, Pathos, Logos; to which we’ve all experienced throughout our lives albeit we may not have had a clue as to this strategic tactic playing out before us.
Examples of this are infinite—Leonardo di ser Piero da Vinci’s Codex Atlanticus, George Orwell’s 1984, Milton William Cooper’s Behold A Pale Horse, Jack Finney’s The Body Snatchers, David Seltzer’s The Omen, H.G. Wells The War of the Worlds, Thomas Michael Keneally’s Schindler’s Ark, William Peter Blatty’s The Exorcist, Richard Condon's The Manchurian Candidate, Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson’s The Illuminatus! Trilogy, Robert Ludlum's The Bourne Identity, Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters, Jules Gabriel Verne’s A Journey to the Center of the Earth, Erich von Däniken’s Chariots of the Gods, not to mention the Conspirator’s Odyssey series to which I’m taking the liberty of weighing in. However unquestionably interminable these examples may be, all remain but the tiniest of pebbles dropped haphazardly into a massive basin of still water.
All of the aforementioned I make crystal clear within the AUTHOR'S NOTE of each manuscript I produce before the story gets underway for it is vital my audience see the connections in history that brought about such a bold hypothesis. With that out of the way, my friend, let us discuss specific examples of where 'it seems that I believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.' I'm a very busy man, but if the discussion is that which warrants my undivided attention; I'll be here to give clarity.
Shall we begin?
THE IDIOT—I think you mean eg, not ie. As for your view that, "Your reality doesn't trump that of mine or anyone else’s," it's complete nonsense. President Kennedy was murdered by Oswald, NASA landed men on the Moon, the Holocaust happened, 9/11 was not carried out by "The Government," etc. These are facts, not theories or opinions, and you need to realize the difference.
A.K. KUYKENDALL—I'm aware that i.e. and e.g. are both abbreviations for Latin terms. I.e. stands for id est and means roughly "that is." E.g. stands for exempli gratia, which means “for example.” And I'm wholly thankful that you pointed out this editorial opportunity on my behalf. However, Mr. Idiot, as I have never said that I was a conspiracy theorist; it is also the case that I've never claimed to be an editor. Your going there leads me to believe you'd rather focus on superfluous details rather than replying to me based on what I've asked:
"Let us discuss specific examples of where 'it seems that I believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.'"
Furthermore, what I believe to be complete nonsense, Mr. Idiot, is your belief that your reality trumps that of anyone else. President Kennedy being murdered by Mr. Oswald is not a fact, it's a theory that has been contemplated for over 50 year with no end in sight given the, I believe, purposeful approach of our government as it relates to facts they have seen fit to conceal. NASA landing men on the moon is a theory because it cannot be proven by you or I, but only speculated about based on information our government deems acceptable for our knowledge. Indeed the Holocaust was a real occurrence, but not in the way we the people have heard. What we have heard and have been allowed to become accustomed to the world over is nothing but an ingeniously forged marketing campaign designed by top military brass. And 9/11 not being carried out by the government, as well, cannot be proven by you or I, but only speculated about based on information our government deems acceptable for our knowledge, which places the happening firmly in the realm of theory not fact as you clearly proclaim.
Again, let us discuss specific examples of where 'it seems that I believe in very wild conspiracies that are not in line with reality.' I'm a very busy man, but if the discussion is that which warrants my undivided attention; I'll be here to give clarity. I do hope that your follow up response falls in line with these parameters, sir.
THE IDIOT—I "went there" because I thought it was funny and it's not "my reality" that trumps everyone else's, its actual reality, which you deny. Why bother saying anything else when you are unwilling to accept that there is a factual reality outside our own feelings/ideas. If you don't believe that simple fact every other conversation is pointless.
A.K. KUYKENDALL—Mr. Idiot, you came to my page proclaiming that I'm a conspiracy theorist, which I believe you haven't read a word of what I've written in book form or above; only assumed as much from my posts. I in-turn have open the door for a discussion on my theories to which you have yet to provide specifics by which to debate. "Pointless”, is the act of reaching out to someone you are in disagreement with only to walk away without the person having an opportunity of expression. Also, I've never denied the points of reality. Give me an example, at least, of where I've denied reality? It's rare to correspond with an author on the points within his or her work. Imposing your reality, feelings, and ideals upon an artist is counterproductive to igniting a great discussion.
THE IDIOT—Conspiracy theorists lie, that's a fact, so get over it! As I've explained from the use of your own "logic," you totally agree with me because my opinion of reality says you do and you can't impose anything on me, right? LOL!
A.K. KUYKENDALL—Wow!
Again, I’ve endured countless debates with people through a number of social media outlets to which they seem to always end the same goddamn way—with these idiots leaning on the mundane and the trivial, which leads me to believe that their differing views had no merit to begin with.
Pragmatic author A.K. Kuykendall has a passion for
writing conspiracy, espionage, horror, and suspense literature that blend the
concepts of fact and fiction. For more information on his projects, visit http://www.thewriterofbooks.com/list-of-works/ or, to email
the author directly for Q&A on this post, write to info@thewriterofbooks.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment