Most Cops are Good?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So why did they start the name calling... calling me Rambo... questioning my credentials...

You keep including me in your rants about a "crew" or "the bunch" or whatever, and while I find you annoying and abrasive as all get-out, I challenge you to show me (or the board) where I've ever called you names or questioned your credentials. Even in this thread I've only addressed you once, and that was to ask a question that has as-yet gone unanswered, just as the question I asked of you in the thread I referenced likewise remains unanswered. Meanwhile, you throw around names with wild abandon, completely counter to the forum rules, and constantly malign the forum that you came here for no other reason than to put the members in our place for being a "punk boys club."

I am direct and don't play nicey-nice with overly-emotional curmudgeons who seem to think the world hangs on their every word, but very rarely do I allow someone to get under my skin to the point that I use simple-minded name-calling to take a dig at them. I am direct in my challenges to what they say, like I was in the thread I referenced earlier in this thread. You've included me in every instance of using words like "asssholes," "punks," "spineless jelly fish," "the 4 sphincters" and the list goes on. And for what? I rarely even address you, but when I do it's not to call you names, it's to call you out for your anti-liberty positions, or exaggerations, or your cantankerous spewage that seems to have no boundaries of self-discipline, decorum, manners, respect or just plain human decency.

It's been my experience that when someone roams the street or the interwebs looking for enemies, they will find all they can handle, and that's exactly what you came here looking for, and exactly what you have created for yourself. If you're looking for someone to blame for the way you're treated here, you don't even have to log-on to the site. Look no further than your own mirror.

Then again, perhaps I was more accurate about you early-on after your arrival here when I quoted tcox4freedom from a few years back:

A little more than two years ago, tcox4freedom may have pegged ET long before he ever got here when he posted this from another forum:

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist



1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather,they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.



2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either
applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of
opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to
directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any
success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.



3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally
with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation
in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise
tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were
likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the
reason.



4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementarypacks or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.



5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy
theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed
by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists,
do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on
conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of
everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or,
one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions
in going out of their way to focus as they do.



6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually
thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of
overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence
community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything,
and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo
artist is that emotions can seem artificial.



Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity
throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining
the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their
usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and
they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a
communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation
one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.



With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them
from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo
patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that
they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what
others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance,
and so forth, or simply give up.



7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their
true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or
it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root
for the side of truth deep within.



I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information
which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed
to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar,
incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware
of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed
no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand
knowledge of it.



8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the
response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:

a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE
response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people
to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO
IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or
the visitor may be swayed towards truth.



b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email,
DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay.
This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect,
and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain
of command.



c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns
are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach
in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their
comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal
truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

There's more interesting stuff, some of which may apply to a recent registrant(s?). Click on the link at the top of this post if you're interested.

Blues

Either way, professional sh!t-stirrer, or it is just in your cantankerous nature, you are not blameless in the way you've been received here.

And still I have refrained from calling you names.....

Blues
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,527
Messages
610,761
Members
74,965
Latest member
Roosince1911
Back
Top