portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts

SPOTTING DISINFORMATION

This is a handy reference tool for spotting trolls and other lower life forms. Given that Indy, and other independent open forums, are increasingly the targets of various members of the sell-out classes this is a nice reference for tuning up your BS detector.
Spotting Disinformation - The rules of the "Game"

Courtesy of   Walt  July 15, 1998

*  1.  Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

*  2.  Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

*  3.  Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

*  4.  Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

*  5.  Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

*  6.  Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

*  7.   Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

*  8.  Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

*  9.   Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

*  10.   Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

*  11.  Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

*  12.   Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

*  13.   Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

*  14.  Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

*  15.  Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. (Can you say Rush Limbaugh - sure you can - just don't choke.)

*  16.  Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

*  17.  Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

*  18.   Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

*  19.  False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

*  20.  Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

8 Traits of a Disinformationalist 17.Dec.2002 01:23

Know Thy Spook

Run, spook, run
 http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=126353
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DISINFORMATION - here, courtesy of Mike Sweeney's web site that frankly, we can't hype enough:  http://www.proparanoid.com a site we consider THE final word in resources for detecting disinformation artists and also for countersurveillance information and his great newsletter, are the Eight Traits of a Disinformationalist.

If you are a regular reader of some boards and groups you will no doubt, upon studying this, be able to start seeing when and where disinfo artists crop up. You'll also note a lot of boards/groups fill up with old news, rehashed news, CNN reruns, the kind of crap that basically pushes good stuff to the bottom of the board, or obliterates it entirely. That is their whole M.O., by the way, to get the good stuff out of sight. It works, too. Most people buy it lock, stock and barrel. We won't name names (for a change!) here but on some of the better well known boards, you can pretty much figure out who is there to just dump junk up on the board: blah blah kind of stuff they cop off of Fox News that frankly, you or I could get from Fox News, thank you, without them regurgitating it up on the chat group or message board. You know what and who we are referring to, most likely. The spy and counterspy site  http://www.chymerick.com/orgs/spyvsspy/ also contains excellent material on detecting a mole or disinformation agent who has been put on a board or a discussion group in order to raise hell with it, scare off truth seekers and legitimate investigators, and discredit sincere Patriots and 'do gooders'. There's more of this going out there right now than you can shake a nightstick at. There's slew of people out there who want to distract you from what is really going on 'neath your nose.

We raise regularly eybrows for our shrugging off Enron as a 'dog and pony show' and giving similar scant attention to the Wag the Dog made for TV Afghanistan movie, but in our humble opinion, that's all it really is. The war's been pre-fab manufactured in order to effect the agenda they want to take place here at home. Tack on the Super Bowl, and you've got a captive audience placated and distracted so you can carry on about the business of turning our country into a police state, a 24/7 surveillance state, and rape what's left of our Constitution.

You wonder why we keep cramming tradecraft down your throat about how to detect if you are being watched, followed, monitored or under orchestrated surveillance? It's because we are trying to throw you a life preserver, stupid; the tools to use to save yourself. Time will tell how many people wise up to it. Big Brother and his NWO toadies count on you staying dumb. We think you can do better. Don't fail us....

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 complementary packs 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) BONUS TRAIT: 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: 1) 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. 2) 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. 3) 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.


praise 17.Dec.2002 04:09

who will I be today?

I haven't read either of these posts yet, but I see the idea is a good and necessary one.


I'll see if I can find "Cheryl's Field Guide to Right Wingnut Poseurs" and some other cognitive tools a little later.

That isn't what this is though... 17.Dec.2002 12:43

Trilox

"In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer."

Newsflash to you genius, its too bad Portland Indymedia isn't a public forum because then we could debate different points of views. Instead, this is a privately owned "news" (I use that term loosely) website where left-wing liberals all come to pat each other on the back as they tell their lies and half truths to each other in order to somehow compensate for the hypocritical consumerist lifestyles they lead.

So, needless to say, don't even try to play this off as a public forum because if thats what it was then people wouldn't constantly be censoring my point of view just because they don't agree with it...

Field Guide 17.Dec.2002 18:49

AP

We already have our first fraud!


Do you know how indymedia was formed?

Do you know WHY indymedia was formed?


Was the famous socialist Albert Einstein simply a "left-wing liberal", and is it it justified to use such words as a pejorative?
www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm


Do you condier ad hominem attacks to be a rational form of argumentation?




=====================================
Guide to Rightwingnut Posers
by Cheryl Seal (updated 2/11/02)
=====================================

The woods are full of lurking rightwingnuts. By rightwingnut, I mean the sort of deluded soul who worships John Ashcroft as a sort of "preliminary second coming" and who will support the corporate bigwigs to the bitter end, even as said bigwigs are robbing these same loyal supporters of every last dime and shred of security they have left.

----Alas, there is a new class of rightwingnut out there that imagines itself "clever" (unfortunately, when you are talking rightwingnuts, this is a contradiction in terms). Instead of going for the direct approach -- sending obscene notes or threatening those who challenge Bush and his pals with bodily harm -- this type tries to play "subtle saboteur" -- or poser, if you prefer.

----There seems to be about three main strategies used by these folks -- I am sure there are other variations on the theme. In fact we should start a "field guide to posers" here at the site, and have our alert readers add notes and "sightings" to the guide as we go along). Here are the three I have identified:

----1. The institutional poser. This species can usually be found hiding in the bushes of an "institute," (Cato Institute, et al.), "foundation," (Heritage Foundation, et al.) "grass roots group" (ex. "Citizens for Sensible Energy Solutions," "Greening Earth Society," etc.), college-based "think tank" (Baker Institute, Hoover Institute, etc.)., or with a pseudo-scholarly journal (Global Warming Journal, funded by the Coal barons). When you get a good look at this crowd through the binoculars, you soon notice that the bulk of their sponsors and founders are corporations. Or, you discover that the "experts" on foreign affairs are former pharmaceutical execs, while experts on climate science have degrees in business, economics, or biology.

---- 2. The "Man on the Street" Poser. These are the folks who are mobilized to give the impression of "critical mass" behind the rightwingnut movement. They can be found skewing polls (they even have a term for this activity now -- "freeping."), haunting progressive web sites where they put up postings designed to "educate" the misguided progressives, dialing up call-in radio shows, and in general popping up whenever a call for a "man on the street" opinion might give them a foot in the door. (It's kind of scary, actually -- if you go to the Free Republic site, you will find that they offer tips for organizing these efforts to make the few look like many, including how-tos on stacking polls.) Often, when these folks call into talk shows like C-SPAN, they will call in on the Democratic or Independent line and then proceed to either read their manifesto outright, or will pretend to be a "concerned liberal", whilst trashing everything non-rightwing. Some even read from prepared scripts -- you might actually hear the same basic script with a few variations read several times in the course of a 3-hour call in show, if the posers have decided the topic is really threatening to them! After a while, you can spot this species pretty easily. Especially when they stumble repeatedly over the big words in their scripts. Or when, to give themselves added credibility, they claim to be professional types and clearly are not -- like the C-SPAN caller with horrendous grammar ("Them people don't never... ") who claimed to be an English professor!

---- 3. The Provocateur Poser. This species of poser is becoming more common as the public becomes more skeptical of the rightwingnuts' direct message. These are furtive, definitely hostile critters, devoted to trying to foment discord and sew doubt among people who hold a non-rightwingnut point of view. There are several subspecies:

----A. "The missionary" provocateur. This type seeks opportunities to convert us infidels. To do this, they will write letters to the editor of a publication or site, claiming to be a "regular reader." They then express "concerns" over some article or letter that has set the rightwingnut buzzers and bells off. The way you can pick these characters out from the sincere readers with real concerns is that they all launch into the same party line, either directly or weaving it in to their interchanges (in the case of a forum). Their aim is to try to discredit information by casting doubt on it in the minds of at least some other readers, and converting them to the "right" point of view. Many Institutional Posers exhibit missionary poser behavior. These are the ones who work at seeding news outlets with letters and press releases that sound authoritative by signing them (for example) "So-and-So, Cato Institute," or "Dr. So-and-so, Ph.D." (of course the Ph.D. might be in elementary education and the topic nuclear reactors!). The pseudo-science babble put forth by some of these folks is amusing to the well-informed, but can sound convincing to people unarmed with the facts.

----B. "Hysterical liberal" provocateur. This sort sends in letters or makes calls to radio talk shows in which they pretend to be an "out of control liberal." The idea being, of course, that anyone hearing or reading this performance will be turned off on all liberals (see, they really are all crazy and dangerous!).. The protestors at the Seattle WTO say they were sabotaged royally by this type of poser and that many (though of course not all) of the window-smashing incidents were actually perpetrated by "hysterical liberal" provocateurs. Some weeks ago, I heard a guy call into C-SPAN (or it may have been NPR's Talk of the Nation) and launch into an obviously contrived routine, pretending to be a paranoid schizophrenic environmentalist wacko who believed the sharks are rising up against the world because of anti-environmentalism. The person I was with at the time happened to have worked at a state mental hospital for several years. He laughed out loud and said "That's the kind of phony act you'd hear from guys trying to get out of the army!" What's even more laughable is that an alarming number of leading rightwingnuts (as in Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson) are real, potentially certifiable paranoid schizophrenics!

----C. "Troublemaker" provocateur. This type tries to get people within a group pissed off at each other, or tries to manipulate an editor, forum participant, etc. into a compromising position. The theme here is discredit, divide and conquer, and/or annoy the hell out of progressive folks. In one instance at a forum I know of, a provocateur kept engaging another forum participant in a dialogue, seeking to draw out incriminating comments that could possibly be construed as "unpatriotic." When the unwitting progressive forum participant finally fell into the trap, he was soon paid a visit by the Boys in Black (FBI). In another instance, someone sent a supposed study by an institute in Pennsylvania that purported to prove that Bush's IQ was far less than any other presidents, while Clinton's was highest. I did not bite, because a little preliminary research revealed no such institute, and in any case, the IQ scores seemed a bit contrived (I don't believe Clinton has a 180 any more than I believe Bush is a 98 -- ignorant, yes, genetically stupid, no). But several liberal sites ran the link and were promptly exposed in an ensuing article that was strategically circulated. The worse troublemaker provocateurs are the malicious ones who infiltrate sites where people go to feel safe -- like one pregnancy forum in New England a young mother I know participated in this past year. Once into the site, one troublemaker rightwingnut started posting pictures of aborted babies and threatening messages. I mean, how low can you go -- picking on pregnant women, and not only that, but those who kept their babies. What made them a target? Some of them had expressed a reluctance when questioned by the poser to condemn other women who did believe in abortion.

----The bottom line with these posers is that they all use deceit to get their message across. It seems to me that if you truly believed in your position, you would not feel you had to sneak it under a cover or create fronts to appear to be something you are not.

----Anyway, we have received two prime examples this week of posers. The first was in response to the "Playing with Nuclear Fire" article. The second was in response to my "daring" to present science-based info on global warming.

----Sample number one is an unsigned letter that definitely falls under the "hysterical infiltrator" heading, although it could also be described as having "missionary poser" undertones.

---- Missionary/hysterical liberal example: "Nuke-you-lar! Nuke-you-lar! Nuke-you-lar!"
----"In fact, radiation-contaminated materials, like spent rods and practically everything else in a decommissioned nuclear plant, whether it be for boiling water (honest to pity, that's how nuclear power is generated, by boiling water) to manufacturing warheads, are indeed dangerous to be exposed to for long periods of time, and will remain that way for tens of thousands of years. About the only safe disposal place right now is into the sun. (What a waste of resources!) The second safest would be to drill a really deep hole in an extinct volcano and send it all back where it came from, into the Earth, where it can all mix back up again."
---- This poser could have at least read my article - which clearly referred to high-level wastes. In any case, this fellow's knowledge of nuclear power was obviously obtained from some rightwingnut pamphlet: "Experts Prove Radioactive Wastes Can Be GOOD for You!"
---- "And yes, I noticed that oil-slick Dick's energy plan makes absolutely zero provision for disposal of nuclear waste, since he of course is also in the front pockets of the nuclear energy CEOs, in fact, he has his hands in the pockets and vice versa into everything EXCEPT the alternate-energy industries, since those will require investment and research before they can make money, and worse (from his point of view), they can't be monopolized. Wind, water, and sun is free."
----Here the guy purports to criticize Cheney, then uses Cheney's own party line, which is that "alternate energy" (maybe Bush wrote this himself) is really useless because it would take too much research and cash to become viable.
----"However, low-level radioactives are a long, long way from the most dangerous chemicals being transported by rail. Liquefied Natural Gas, LNG, transported under pressure is the most powerful chemical explosive yet invented, hundreds of times more destructive than the equivalent mass of TNT. Chlorine gas is also transported under pressure, and a ruptured chlorine tank (or tanker) could kill everything for miles, turning the moisture in your lungs and eyes into hydrochloric acid. The various hydrazines are shipped by rail, which is not only explosive when exposed to anything containing oxygen, not only a deadly poison, but a carcinogen in even the parts per billion range. (While working for NASA, I helped design crash "proof" containment for Poison A and transport-grade explosives, designed to withstand a head-on collision at a combined speed of 100 mph, but nothing is perfect.)"
----If this man indeed were a scientist and worked for NASA, he would most certainly know that high-level nuclear wastes are more dangerous than any of the chemicals he mentions, which though indeed very dangerous, would not cause a fraction of the damage of a single spent rod pool disaster -- nor would the effects last tens of thousands of years! Instead, he doesn't seem to even know that there are different types of radioactive wastes!
----"And low-grade radioactives cannot be made into a bomb. Period. "Weapons grade" uranium and plutonium just means regular old purified metal without the rock and dirt and slag and crud in it. "Enriched" radioactives are necessary to even start on atomic weapons, and that stuff is very expensive and very carefully guarded."
----This incredible mishmash of misinformation must be made up as he goes along!
---- "(Biggest danger: there are hundreds of pounds of that stuff already stuffed into firing balls floating around the former Soviet Union, and no one has a clue where. So what does the nose-picking drunk do? Pulls out of treaties intended to track down and recover the stuff, in order to fan the flames of fear for his stupidassed campaign-payback missile program, never mind that a Chechnyan terrorist wouldn't know a missile if he tripped over one, but is easily capable of commandeering a junk fishing boat with a hold big enough for a Fat Boy sized dirty bomb.)"
----Now the guy is warming up to the "hysterical infiltrator" part of the pitch!
----"As for national nuclear security, plbplbplbplb. You can download the plans yourself from just about any web site. For that matter, you can get most of it in hard copy from your local library. So what? You can get the plans for building a race car just as easily. Tell me you can build a race car from scratch -- and you can buy most of the parts for a race car at the local Automart. The sensitive and expensive electronic parts necessary even to build the precision trigger, on the other hand, are not something you'll find on E-bay.

----"It's not the information, it's the infrastructure. And that goes double for first-world countries. Think how easily a major storm can reduce us to stone-age tools. Now consider if there's no fuel to run the manufacturing plants to produce the tools to make the repairs, or get the delivery trucks on the road, or make and supply the medicines and the clean water and the communications,,,, Oil-Slick doesn't care, he's at death's door already. All he wants is more money right now.

----"My personal preference for a use for the low-grade radioactives? Plant them in the center of all the "holy" places that wars are always being fought over, from Jerusalem to the Southern Baptist churches. The more often someone goes to pray to their invisible ghosts, the more radiation damage they take. Darwin award. That takes the genes for stupidity and gullibility out of the race within two or three generations."
----So as his grand finale, he polishes off his masterpiece with the "troublemaker" approach, pretending to be a radical progressive, who, of course has got to be a vicious heathen who hates all good "God-fearin' folks", right?

----Sample two is an example of the institutional poser with a strong dose of troublemaker provocateur thrown in. Although the name was signed, I will not embarrass the writer by including it. Unlike the rightwingnuts, we here at Unknown have got some sensitivity for others.

----Institutional/troublemaker poser example:
----"I've started reading through your site quite frequently. I appreciate evident effort you put into gathering non-mainstream news, and I'm glad to have a more information about current events."
----This is a missionary poser type hook. The reader is our "friend" and "admirer."
----"I read "Cheryl's Daily Diatribe", and I have to say, it's not misnamed, at least not on some of the points. I am concerned about the substance of some of your causes (but not your editorial contributions, they are certainly substantive). The example that caught my eye is global warming. Almost all of the press on global warming is political or regulatory in nature. Scientific results regarding this issue have not been prominently published in the mainstream press for years, and, on the few occasions where hard science is cited, it is usually misappropriated to suit the author's point-of-view."
----This poser wastes no time starting to spout the gospel according to the coal-industry sponsored "Greening Earth Society!" Of course, she doesn't bother questioning why scientific results (which abound) on global warming have not been published in the mainstream press. Do you get the sneaking feeling that her claim of having read my articles -- which deal constantly of late with how and why industry-unfriendly information is suppressed -- is completely made up? She was probably forwarded this article by a fellow wingnut this week and had never clapped eyes on Unknown News before then.
----"From a scientific perspective, "global warming" is, at best, a speculative theory. Current warming trends have numerous possible explanations, some of which have better scientific underpinnings than the generic greenhouse gas explanation. This is one issue where public policy has raced far ahead of research, much less conclusive evidence. Even if global warming was regarded as fact, it is by no means obvious that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions may have the desired effect."
----This propaganda line is take almost word for word from the stock stuff disseminated by "Greening Earth Society" and other fossil-fuel industry "global warming" sites. I don't think it ever occurs to posers that some of us might be familiar with the source of their corporate spiel -- if so you'd think they would try to be a little more creative and at least paraphrase a little!
----"H.L. Mencken guides us, 'For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.'"
----Yep, and the rightwingnuts seem to hit on it every time!
----"Therefore, bitter editorials about environmental or energy policies may fall wide of the target. It is almost certainly true that energy demand, and the associated waste heat, is as big a concern as emissions from energy production. Very few, if any, plans actually address the demand side of the global warming issue."
----Gee, I wonder why that would be?? Could it possibly be that corporate lobbyists block every effort to create deterrents to overconsumption? Like the little trick of failing to levy any kind of deterring tax on SUV ownership, or McMansions (with their 12 foot ceilings and 3,000-foot plus spaces guzzling heating oil and gas).
----"What's worse, world fuel supplies, including natural gas and fissionable materials, are finite resources, and estimates from legitimate sources on fuel resources range from 30 years (even for Uranium) to 3000 years."
----All the more reason to shift to another energy source now.
----"Clearly, this is a complex issue. The focus should be on continued research, and efforts to improve the situation should be broader in scope."
----Spoken like a true Bushite! In other words, we must stall, stall, stall and let the next generation deal with the problem!
----"ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND PETROLEUM DEPLETION IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY:  http://www.binghamton.edu/ econ/ wp00/ WP2001.pdf."
----This is the site the writer is affiliated with, although I must point out that her name is not on the cover page. If you click on this, you will discover that the site has absolutely no scientific connections -- it is an economics policy program! Sort of like Bush the MBA being enough of an instant expert on Global Warming to trash Kyoto!
----"The DOE is even pessimistic:  http://www.fe.doe.gov/ oil_gas/ reports/ accel_dep/ foreword.shtml."
----If I were the DOE I would be pessimistic too!
----"A doomsday site that actually bothers to support their editorials with citations:  http://www.dieoff.org/."
----She intentionally forwards the reader to one of the least scientific progressive global warming sites out there (maintained by an economist). It has a mildly "hysterical liberal" feel to it referring to the energy crisis as fossilgate, with its URL containing the words "dieoff." Every article there is stale, in terms of science, dating to 2000 or earlier. If this poser seriously wants some citations on the reality of global warming,, I will be glad to provide them -- about 1,500 of them, in fact, and those are just the articles I myself have read in the past four years, all from hard core science journals, none from "economics web sites" or even from nontechnical environmental mags like Whole Earth. But, if she really had been a regular reader of Unknown News and of my column, she would have know that my current "day job" is as a science abstractor and she probably would have modified her tactic.

----So, any of you out there who have had your own "poser sightings," send in your notes! We will keep adding to the "field guide!"

 http://www.unknownnews.net/cs020602.html

bust out the tinfoil mama, 17.Dec.2002 21:27

jungle jim's comin' home

This post bear's the distinct scent of that UFO guy.

Are the FOIA MOD docs not too interesting this week?

Think for yourself... 17.Dec.2002 21:31

Trilox

It was real easy for Diogenes and AP to copy and paste someone elses thoughts on the subject. I find it interesting that neither one can even put together a few paragraphs of their own...

the most precious resource---time 18.Dec.2002 03:15

AP = Already Published!

Einstein used to wear the same clothes every day to avoid wasting time on trivial decisions.


I post other peoples compositions when I feel they've done a better job than I could. It saves me wasting a lot of time.



======================
When I wrote these things- [these instructions to the embassies to frame Arabs for Israeli terrorist attacks on U.S. targets in Egypt] - I still didn't know how crushing is the evidence that was ALREADY PUBLISHED refuting our official version. The huge amounts of arms and explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of the roads ... the precise coordination of the attack. WHO WOULD BE FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BELIEVE that such a complicated operation could "develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by an Egyptian unit?

- Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel 1954 & 1955.
======================



I spend more than enough of my precious time composing point by point rebuttals to the lies of debate stifling agents...


Be thankful.

Darwinian selections for explanatory fitness 18.Dec.2002 03:30

AP

addendum:

Using the name "confab", I posted rational scientific arguments AGAINST the likelihood of extra-terrestrial intelligent life, based on the Drake equations and the Space-Travel-Argument.

So please don't try to poision the information wells with your appeals to ridicule and guilt by allegations of association.

Trolls use the book of fallacies as a guide to producing spin, so I'm not surprised by that response.




Another essential item in the cognitive toolkit:

Logical Fallacies at the anti-Nazi Nizkor project
 http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

? 18.Dec.2002 03:55

John

How do you know they can't?

Are you the same Trilox whom I see so frequently?

If so, how have you managed to miss Diogenes' and AP's other posts?

If not, upon what grounds do you claim authority on their composition styles?

If it were true, why would it be interesting?

You Know Your Subject Quite Well 18.Feb.2004 08:10

Maggie Whynhema@aol.com

My compliments! You know your subject quite well and have defined it with perfection. It should be requred reading for everyone everywhere!


Proparanoid site hijacked by government operatives? 15.Jun.2005 09:43

H. Michael Sweeney

Proparanoid site hijacked by government operatives?

Thank you for the kind promotion of my work in your post.

However I issue an urgent WARNING! The proparanoid.com Web site was apparantly hijacked by government operative to take me 'off the air', ransoming it for $157,800 to let me have it back! DO NOT VISIT PROPARANOID.COM IF YOU WOULD NOT APPROVE OF INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY TRACKING OF YOUR VISIT! My new Web site is proparanoid.net, where you can learn more about the hijacking and find the original content in tact.

H. Michael Sweeney, author
The Professional Paranoid: How to Fight Back When Stalked, Targeted, or Harassed by Any Person, Group, or Individual;
MC Realities;
In Mindless Times;
Fatal Rebirth

http://www,proparanoid.net
PO 1941 Clackamas Or 97015