My thoughts? I think maybe some of your same approach (to what I have to assume is all of life) has been posted here many times over my 3 years or so of perusing this board; oft times quite frequently. I think you will find that ad nauseum rants about how stupid and uniformed we all are will find no purchase with anyone of any substance here. If your intent ( which is what often fuels these sorts of things) is to impressive Mr. King, you might be disappointed to know that he and his entire staff, deal with near insanity more than the insane themselves.
In short, if you are trying to give us and the King staff a laugh, you have probably done so. However, it has become tiresome and frankly belies an immature mind and thought process. I, too, thought all the "big people" were not to be trusted in my days of youth and folly.
To that end, this is why I refuse to actually discuss this subject with you. Like the faith in spiritual religion, your conspiratorial religion (obviously fueled by Beck, Limbaugh, Bortz and Alex Jones) precludes you from logical debate. It is impossible to debate faith or reason with it. A logical discussion attempting to address the 7 foot bullet list of verbal diarrhea you have spewed in your posts is simply impossible due to volume and short attention spans.
But make no mistake, your technique of voluminous onslaught of various and sundry topics is one that is used by those who simply want to bully their way through a debate, not actually learn something, or are so unsure of themselves or their argument that they must distract from the issue or create an environment that eliminates debate so their weakness can't be exposed.
Summary of your "thoughts" and "arguments":
"If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull$hit."
Good day, elephant whisperer.
Just thought I'd fling another two cents at this discussion, and suggest a whole lot of argument isn't about perception, per se, so much as selectivity... or more accurately, the potential state of psychological dissonance that arises from cognitive processes that encourages selectivity.
Psychologists have studied this unusual phenomenon for over 60 years; Leon Festinger started the ball rolling in the early 1950s in an attempt to explain why and how the members of a UFO cult were persuaded by their leader, a certain Mrs Keech, that the earth was going to be destroyed on a certain date and that they alone were going to be rescued by aliens. What puzzled Festinger most of all was that members actually increased their commitment to the cult when nothing Keech had prophesized had actually come to pass.
Festinger soon observed the dissonance that arose from the realization of being perceived as so foolish (if not outright stupid) was so great that cult members revised their beliefs so as to conform to self-evident facts: that the aliens had, through their concern for the cult, decided to save the world instead.
In a more mundane experiment conducted in 1959, Festinger and a colleague named James Carlsmith, asked college students to lie about a boring task, and so they did... often happily. To understand the significance of this, I'll need to describe the experiment in a bit of detail: students were asked to spend an hour on tasks that were intentionally meant to be frustrating, boring and tedious (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). Once the students had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favour. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an confederate) and persuade this subject that the tasks were genuinely interesting and engaging. Some of the students were paid $20 (equivalent to about $160 in present day value) while other students were paid $1 (equivalent to about $10 in present day value]). A control group was not asked to perform the favour, but to only perform the task.
When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This is exactly what Festinger and Carlsmith expected to happen: people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behaviour, and thus experienced less dissonance.
To sum things up, research suggests the consequences of exposure to information inconsistent with prior beliefs tends to be out-right ignored or argued against. Furthermore, when individuals act in ways that are inconsistent with their prior attitudes, a great deal of rationalization (i.e., cognitive distortion) typically follows. It's for this reason people seek out information (and opinions) that generally confirm their beliefs rather than challenge them. For this reason, it's not really an issue about perception so much as selectivity.