515 Crew

Just quit while you're only so far behind.

aeon grey wrote:crump... give coast to coast a try.. I think you would like it. Sometimes it is great.. sometimes it is ridiculous.

Whoah. totally randomly came across this on youtube... wasn't doing any research related to this thread or coast to coast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcLWTuwT7Kk

anyway, pretty fascinating interview. i give coast to coast the crumpty stamp of approval. what station/times is this on? also, does anyone know who the radio guy is in the interview above?

Crumpty Williams wrote:

aeon grey wrote:crump... give coast to coast a try.. I think you would like it. Sometimes it is great.. sometimes it is ridiculous.

Whoah. totally randomly came across this on youtube... wasn't doing any research related to this thread or coast to coast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcLWTuwT7Kk

anyway, pretty fascinating interview. i give coast to coast the crumpty stamp of approval. what station/times is this on? also, does anyone know who the radio guy is in the interview above?

1040 AM from 1:00AM to 5:00AM on Weeknights. It starts at midnight on weekends.

hmm.... 1:00-5:00am slightly conflicts with my regular sleep schedule...

okay, i read all the articles, every word.

At first i was enjoying it. I love a good conspiracy theory.

But this wasn't good.

This was offensively bad.

The guy claims he's been researching this for a decade? if so, you'd think his life's work that he's so smugly claiming as fact would contain on far less ocassion, if not void of, such terms as "probably", "one would believe", "supposedly", etc. etc.

It's fairly easy to say this is the the snarkiest "journalist" i've ever read. His little sidebar type stanzas where he speaks to the reader, reassuring them that they're not crazy and he's not leading them to any certain conclusions, "just laying the facts out on the table". Leaving unfinished sentences to be filled in with his oft used catchphrases let's me know that this is the type of dude that, if he were to be speaking to me in person, i'd punch him in the mouth. Arrogant, self congratulatory prick.

A very large amount of conjecture going on here.

the man is obviously biased against many of the social practices involving this lifestyle. it's hard to claim objectivity when you're openly lambasting nearly every aspect of your subjects lives. this thing begins in a fashion akin to a fact list and becomes a hippie editorial with a lot of strings attached to coincidence. His 'web' is pretty ridiculous as it's based around several facts tied together by hundreds of rumors and hearsay accounts of decades old happenings.

i've read Bigfoot reports that were not only better written, but more convincing and a hell of a lot easier to read.

i keep getting glimpses of Alex Jones crossed with a snivelling celebrity gossip blogger when i read this stuff.

well, fair enough.

I do however disagree with your overall assessment of the story... it seems that what i saw as a kind of ironic humor (even self-depracating at some level) you saw as literal self-aggrandizing snarky-ism. While to me the way I see it seems to obviously be the way it was intended, I suppose that's just my subjective opinion. So on that matter, to each his own I guess.

As for the accuracy of the "facts" used, he pretty openly acknowledges that he's going on the best info he can get, realizing that some of it may not be a thousand percent accurate (for the same reasons you just mentioned) and openly invites anyone to correct him if and/or where he makes any factual mistakes. I'm pretty sure that he's even made a point of logging for the reader where this has occurred so far and what changes he's made as new information has come to light.

Anyway, ultimate point is that even if you don't dig the writing style, the coincidences that crop up in the [I'll say "alleged" if that makes you happier] facts presented are pretty damn intriguing. In fact, even if he's 100% wrong about everything it's still an interesting concept to ponder, IMO.

Sorry you didn't enjoy.

it's always intriguing when someone gets tunnel vision about a set of parameters and proceeds to link anything and everything they can find to by whatever means they see fit.

it's like when you start driving a new car, you notice just how many people drive that same model.

if you're looking for duck-shaped clouds, you're gonna find a lot of ducks.

t.j.

teedotjaydot wrote:it's always intriguing when someone gets tunnel vision about a set of parameters and proceeds to link anything and everything they can find to by whatever means they see fit.

it's like when you start driving a new car, you notice just how many people drive that same model.

if you're looking for duck-shaped clouds, you're gonna find a lot of ducks.

Wow, that IS intriguing. Almost as intriguing as watching someone try to pidgeonhole a totally gnarly dude (like myself--duh) into some category of tunnel-visioned idiots, simply for presenting a possible view of reality that doesn't comport with their own. And all with an absolutely BRILLIANT sense of smug condescension. (I mean the smug condescension is the coolest for real. It actually makes people smarter the more they use it. EXTREMELY intriguing).

Crumpty Williams wrote:

teedotjaydot wrote:it's always intriguing when someone gets tunnel vision about a set of parameters and proceeds to link anything and everything they can find to by whatever means they see fit.

it's like when you start driving a new car, you notice just how many people drive that same model.

if you're looking for duck-shaped clouds, you're gonna find a lot of ducks.

Wow, that IS intriguing. Almost as intriguing as watching someone try to pidgeonhole a totally gnarly dude (like myself--duh) into some category of tunnel-visioned idiots, simply for presenting a possible view of reality that doesn't comport with their own. And all with an absolutely BRILLIANT sense of smug condescension. (I mean the smug condescension is the coolest for real. It actually makes people smarter the more they use it. EXTREMELY intriguing).

you misunderstand.

i truly believe this guy, and you for that matter, are well adjusted and intelligent individuals. I don't believe i ever called you or him and idiot. One can have tunnel-vision on one subject and still be functional. This possible view of reality is the whole reason i'm accusing him, and i guess you, of keeping the blinders on.

i was never once directly referring to you in any of my critiques of his writing until now.

oh yeah, one more thing.....

"it seems that what i saw as a kind of ironic humor (even self-depracating at some level) you saw as literal self-aggrandizing snarky-ism."

i guess i don't see how posing a theory about something in history based on the evidence one has accumulated qualifies as "tunnel vision." It seems like just the opposite to me... Wouldn't tunnel vision be more like refusing to acknowledge, even in the face of supporting evidence, that the theory is a possibility?

I mean I'm not saying that the dude is 100% right or that I absolutely am convinced of the theory... but I think the guy has made a decent case for his point, and that it's a pretty interesting theory to ponder, which is the whole reason why I posted it.

I really don't understand how this makes me guilty of anything even remotely resembling tunnel vision.

Protip: I think he was talking about the author, not you.

Well either way, same logic applies...

mk ultra was a pretty okay band as well.

disclaimer: I'm posting more on this one subject than i have on this entire board in a long while, and if it seems ridiculous that's because it is. I'm bored and i read the whole thing and now feel i need to justify my hate. not sorry.

I really think you just didn't understand what i was talking about.

When i first started reading those articles i got a little hooked. As i stated earlier I love a good conspiracy theory and i usually give them more than a fair chance.

the reason he lost me is the same reason i accuse him of having tunnel vision. After the 3rd or 4th article all i could picture was a guy who stumbled upon the fact that one of the major LC players' parents were military or government officials and from there went looking for anything he could find related to the matter and along the way picked up on some more narrowly defined "suspicious" things.

It's a coincidence that many of them were related to military/government personnel but he only shows you specific people with specific connections. When you boil it all down and only look at his "facts" it does at first appear to be some mass conspiracy, but the reality of the situation is that LC was only a small part of the musical/social/political world that pushed the counterculture/hippie/flowerchild movement.

on top of that his way of presenting himself with this smug air of authority on totally unproven theories, be them directly or indirectly related to his assertions, make my stomach turn.

Many of the key pieces to his puzzle are based on assumptions that he claims as fact. Whether you want to believe in them or not is up to you but i like to have my theories based on a little more of a solid footing than speculation from a blogger.

I appreciate the more thorough explanation.

Although again I'd have to say I disagree with your assessments of both the reliability of the article and the attitude of the author (and again, it's not like I'm falling for this all like a blind duck either... as I stated earlier, I think he's made a decent case for his point... a good starting point at least--I mean you wouldn't expect evidence for this kind of thing to be exactly jumping out of hiding for everyone to see would you?). But yeah, it's ultimately up to the reader to decide whether or not it's worth looking into further. He presented enough info for me personally to not completely discount the possibility of what he's getting at...

But my point was not to force that interpretation on anyone else... like i've said since the beginning, I think it's a pretty interesting theory--worth pondering whether its true or not. Just thinking about the implications of this if it were indeed true is what i found mot interesting.

That's kind of the direction I was hoping to go with this thread... to get people to consider the possibility (however remote it may be--though I think this guy has made it at least a little less remote than one would originally assume) that the powers that be could actually hold such a fine-tuned influence over something that would otherwise seem to represent the epitome of individuality and freedom.

I mean it's easy to see that a lot modern pop stars are completely manufactured corporate creations.... But to consider that legendary "counter-culture" musical icons (regardless of what kind of music you're into) like Zappa, Morrison, Hendrix, etc. could have ultimately served quite simply as instruments of control over the population? If so I think it's a pretty paradigm-shattering concept.

Which is why I was hoping to get people to look into this more on their own... I would've liked to have seen an open discussion about whether or not this could have really gone down and why or why not. I don't see the point of all the angry outright dismissals... even to the point of getting pissed at me for posting it. (ha!)

If you think the writer was an ass and/or that he failed to 100% prove his point, well... ok. I can understand that. If you let either of these things 1) make you angry, or 2) cause you to completely dismiss the theory, I'd say that's a bit silly (illogical, in fact).

Sorry for the long-windedness. If anyone gets angry at his or her self for even considering to respond to this and thus keep such a ridiculously stupid thread alive longer, I encourage you all not to waste your time and do something much more constructive by joining in on that gnarly schoolyard-style rock fight in the Cross Exam/Hatchet thread.

Love,
Crumpty

P.S. Although it could possibly be read as such, this was NOT an angry or whiny post. Just callin it like i see it.

crumpty & tj please stop spending time with jrs.

storkus won.