I'm exactly the same with the "daydreaming to destination" thing and also taking varying routes. Driving for me is like walking: You don't think about each step, but you still move and don't fall over.

so civilised!

Crazy: Person who has a view that contradicts your own.

There is no such think as evil, except as a concept. The universe just expresses itself. You can label things/evens as right, wrong, good, evil all you want, but the fact remains and these are just artificial concepts.

People DO spill the beans, often. But they're conspiracy nuts ... right? Seems to be a bit of circular reasoning.

it's a case of: "you can't handle the truth!". People find it easier to deny conspiracy theories than to turn their world upside down. This is why some CT-ists use the phrase: "wake up!".

Now you have evoked a straw man by your presumption of motive. Maybe there are other reasons to create a virus ...? Do you know about the population reduction agenda?

Many accusations of "conspiracy nuttery" are married with the accusation of "no evidence". Sometimes, however, what the accuser fails to recognise is that the "theorist" is not actually a nut; there is evidence! The accuser is simply unaware of it. You need evidence for your theory of non-evidence, hypocrite.

It's far more likely the government created the virus for purposes of population control (look it up if you don't know) than the pharmaceutical industry. Although it could be an agenda of selling vaccines.

This is exactly the attitude that stops conspiracy theories from "getting out". People subconsciously use this argument to dismiss a theory, when told. The reason the the theory doesn't get out is that no one believes it when they are told. Evey time I try to tell people that the sodium fluoride (rat poison) in our water supply is NOT good for us, they think I'm a conspiracy nut. Even though there is overwhelming evidence for this on the internet.

So no, people aren't "keeping their mouth shut". It's just that no one believes them. People believe the television instead.

"There is absolutely no evidence to support any of these theories." [citation needed]

Have you looked for any? You might be surprised.

get over you're "logical fallacy". it's not about that. What he means is that once you have an insight about the nature of the industry, it becomes allot easier to believe that this was engineered. No, it doesn't prove it, but what people on the other side are doing is saying "gee, man made? that's so UN-believable that it can't be true." There's a logical fallacy to consider.

The difference between the two sides is that one side has experienced or read allot about the evils of the industry and the other hasn't. Consider the perspectives of each when they hear about the swine flu being man made.

I think the GP expressed this more elegantly, but I just had to spell it out.

Ever try Google? Search: "corruption pharmaceuticals industry"

This is a billion dollar industry whose only interest is to push as many drugs on us a possible for profit. They have no intention, or financial incentive, to cure anyone, but to treat symptoms and keep us sick and still "needing" their drug relief. They suppress alternative therapies that they can't market and in some cases go out of their way to make us sicker so that we spend more on drugs.

This information is easy to find on the net. Not just as "conspiracy theories", but as documented cases of corruption that make their intentions so obvious that you don't even really need a theory to understand what's happening.

Of course, if you watch allot of television, then it will seem that drugs are a necessary part of health and that these drug companies a great benefit to mankind

Remember: A patient cured is a customer lost

Ideas should be free. The idea that one can own an idea is, I believe, an ill conceived principal.

Perhaps I should patent "patents".

they don't. is this such a difficult idea to accept? The idea of art-for-money is dead. I say GOOD! When money gets behind art, it is no longer art. citation: pop music.