Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney

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 commentatorbecome 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.

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

by H. Michael Sweeney

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact.

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives.

The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even "good guys" can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key to) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluations... to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not... or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid and a new one must be found... but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain ofevidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process.However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily ledastray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

For such disinformationalists, the overall aim is to avoid discussing links in the chain of evidence which cannot be broken by truth, but at all times, to use clever deceptions or lies to make select links seem weaker than they are, create the illusion of a break, or better still, cause any who are considering the chain to be distracted in any number of ways, including the method of questioning the credentials of the presenter. Please understand that fact is fact, regardless of the source. Likewise, truth is truth, regardless of the source. This is why criminals are allowed to testify against other criminals. Where a motive to lie may truly exist, only actual evidence that the testimony itself IS a lie renders it completely invalid. Were a known 'liar's' testimony to stand on its own without supporting fact, it might certainly be of questionable value, but if the testimony (argument) is based on verifiable or otherwise demonstrable facts, it matters not who does the presenting or what their motives are, or if they have lied in the past or even if motivated to lie in this instance -- the facts or links would and should stand or fall on their own merit and their part in the matter will merely be supportive.

Moreover, particularly with respects to public forums such as newspaper letters to the editor, and Internet chat and news groups, the disinfo type has a very important role. In these forums, the principle topics of discussion are generally attempts by individuals to cause other persons to become interested in their own particular position, idea, or solution -- very much in development at the time. People often use such mediums as a sounding board and in hopes of pollination to better form their ideas. Where such ideas are critical of government or powerful, vested groups (especially if their criminality is the topic), the disinfo artist has yet another role -- the role of nipping it in the bud. They also seek to stage the concept, the presenter, and any supporters as less than credible should any possible future confrontation in more public forums result due to their early successes. You can often spot the disinfo types at work here by the unique application of "higher standards" of discussion than necessarily warranted. They will demand that those presenting arguments or concepts back everything up with the same level of expertise as a professor, researcher, or investigative writer. Anything less renders anydiscussion meaningless and unworthy in their opinion, and anyone who disagrees is obviously stupid -- and they generally put it in exactly those terms.

So, as you read any such discussions, particularly so in Internet news groups (NG), decide for yourself when a rational argument is being applied and when disinformation, psyops (psychological warfare operations) or trickery is the tool. Accuse those guilty of the latter freely. They (both those deliberately seeking to lead you astray, and those who are simply foolish or misguided thinkers) generally run for cover when thus illuminated, or -- put in other terms, they put up or shut up (a perfectly acceptable outcome either way, since truth is the goal.) Here are the twenty-five methods and seven traits, some of which don't apply directly to NG application. Each contains a simple example in the form of actual (some paraphrased for simplicity) from NG comments on commonly known historical events, and a proper response.[examples & response- http://www.proparanoid.com/truth.html]

Accusations should not be overused -- reserve for repeat offenders and those who use multiple tactics. Responses should avoid falling into emotional traps or informational sidetracks, unless it is feared that some observers will be easily dissuaded by the trickery. Consider quoting the complete rule rather than simply citing it, as others will not have reference. Offer to provide a complete copy of the rule set upon request (see permissions statement at end):


Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation

Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

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 which 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' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' 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 be 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 'minutia' 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 except with denials 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 - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) 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 then 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, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' 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 lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic
which 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 with issues 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.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. 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.

18. 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.'

19. 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, it may be required that 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.

20. 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.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.

22. 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.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .

I would add to this list another technique, which we are seeing more and more. That is to preemptively accuse a critic of using one of those techniques above. This follows the pattern of right wing propaganda that we see every day - accuse the opposition of things that the accusers are themselves doing. The "election fraud" nonsense is a good example. What better way to create a smokescreen around stealing elections then to preemptively accuse the opposition of fraud? That re-framed the issue as one of voters cheating rather than authorities stealing, and seriously muddied the waters.

Many of us were witness to an organized campaign at DU after the last presidential election. A gang of new people showed up self-identifying as "election investigators" and zealously pushing ideas about how the Republicans were stealing the elections that were all dead ends. A dozen or more sincere and genuine members, who questioned this group, were successfully accused of themselves being the infiltrators "trying to steer us away from investigating the election" and banned en masse.

There are two dangers associated with discussing this - other than the danger to the person brining it up of being isolated and discredited. First, innocent people can be mistakenly identified as disruptors or infiltrators and maligned. This is especially dangerous because the infiltrators themselves will try to take an honest member down by hinting that they are themselves an infiltrator. The second danger is complacency. It takes discretion and discernment to navigate between these two. We are crippled because this topic, of all of the topics that could be discussed, is the most quickly and thoroughly suppressed, so we can never compare notes or explore the subject.

It defies all logic and common sense that it would be so difficult to run an online board, and that it is only the Left political boards where people mysteriously cannot get along and that inexplicably blow up with regularity. Yet people are resistant to entertaining the possibility that all of the uproar does not happen by accident.

I have decided that there is nothing to lose by diving into this subject, since it is clear that no productive discussions will ever happen so long as the possibility of the discussions being intentionally and expertly derailed and sabotaged cannot be touched.

That being said, I am not asking anyone to join me and form a lynch mob. I am asking that the subject be discussed - calmly, intelligently, carefully. Shining the light on this can only be good, but there is no need for any rush to judgment.

I think the biggest barrier to discussing this is the difficulty people have believing that we could be targeted. People will,even say “I'm not going there.” Some of those objections:

"We aren't important enough."

"I don't want to get paranoid."

"It would be too difficult (expensive, etc,) for anyone to do."

Yet the same people that say those things about Internet boards have no problem at all seeing that in all other areas the PTB is quite motivated, well financed, and well organized. They have no problem accepting the idea that we probably are only seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to government wire-tapping, lying, and corruption. For some reason, it is only critics on the Internet that the we are to believe the government would have no interest in.

That brings us to the "does the Internet matter" argument. The right wingers think that we critics on the Internet matter. Why do we think that we do not, or that the Internet is irrelevant? Someone asked me this morning how the public could now be so far ahead of the mainstream press on understanding what the government is doing? Where are people getting their information? Of course the Internet matters.

Newswolf did a good job of tying this "what does it matter" idea into a broader malaise of anti-intellectualism in the society. One is swimming against a very stiff current when one cares about things, and the jeering "what are you so worked up about" taunts will back people down pretty quickly. Right now, over at another board a pack of attack dogs is jeering at me - "he must have lost his girlfriend" or "his dog died" and other speculative and slanderous "explanations" as to why someone would care. Blended in with a toxic mix of smears and innuendos, that backs everyone iff and away from the topic. "I don't want to take sides" or "I am confused and don't know which side is right" and "I am getting a headache from all of this" or "why don't we (or why doesn't he or why don't they) chill out" and "who needs this drama" are commonly expressed sentiments.

The reason I first tried to post about this, was because a textbook example of an online disinformation campaign is going on at another board, and because it involves the same players and the same techniques involved in the uproar at PI. How could that not be of interest to people here?

But as I said, I am not asking you to join my side or my team. Don't join any lynch mob. I am asking you to think about this and look at it and discuss it. Why should that simple request cause an uproar? Yet it always does.

Woah, those are some concisely written summaries. Alot to look over, some of it obvious, some of it obvious in retrospect where you wonder how you missed it in the first place.

I know this topic is of no interest to Mairead, so maybe we should request that she not comment on this thread. We already have a thread for talking about the relative merits of caring about infiltrators in the first place.

I really do believe the "we are not that important" idea though. Does PI really need infiltrating? Certainly I have a hard time seeing how this place would.

I really do believe the "we are not that important" idea though. Does PI really need infiltrating? Certainly I have a hard time seeing how this place would.

I wondered about that, as well. In fact, I thought that surely we would be safe from disruption at a small board. But what we saw (and I don't think there is any question about this) is not that we were free from uproar, but rather that in the smaller setting it stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed to come from out of nowhere. It left everyone scratching their heads saying WTF? On a bigger board, it blends better with the flow and is not so obviously out of synch with the group.

We know the methods used to monitor boards - from various sources which I can dig up as needed - where one person can monitor several boards at the same time. I had always assumed that it was more or less the group that was monitored, and it didn't occurred to me that it might be specific people who are being monitored or more importantly specific subjects. I should have thought that, since all that we know about government monitoring of websites has been described as the monitoring of content. Certain subjects never fail to create an uproar, and at the top of the list of subjects that cause an uproar is when anyone notices a pattern to disruption, or points out classic disinformation techniques that are being used. That always gets immediate attention. Since there are very few people - amazingly - who are suspicious of infiltrators, there is not that much that needs watching - if in fact I am right, and that is a subject that is being watched. Almost everything discussed at the various boards is completely harmless and kept within very safe and predictable boundaries.

But I am far from certain about any of this. I am not so much trying to explain what is happening or why, rather I am saying that something is happening and that there are far too many coincidences and too many patterns that match up to what we know about disinformation and infiltration in the past.

I really do believe the "we are not that important" idea though. Does PI really need infiltrating? Certainly I have a hard time seeing how this place would.

I wondered about that, as well. In fact, I thought that surely we would be safe from disruption at a small board. But what we saw (and I don't think there is any question about this) is not that we were free from uproar, but rather that in the smaller setting it stuck out like a sore thumb and seemed to come from out of nowhere. It left everyone scratching their heads saying WTF? On a bigger board, it blends better with the flow and is not so obviously out of synch with the group.

We know the methods used to monitor boards - from various sources which I can dig up as needed - where one person can monitor several boards at the same time. I had always assumed that it was more or less the group that was monitored, and it didn't occurred to me that it might be specific people who are being monitored or more importantly specific subjects. I should have thought that, since all that we know about government monitoring of websites has been described as the monitoring of content. Certain subjects never fail to create an uproar, and at the top of the list of subjects that cause an uproar is when anyone notices a pattern to disruption, or points out classic disinformation techniques that are being used. That always gets immediate attention. Since there are very few people - amazingly - who are suspicious of infiltrators, there is not that much that needs watching - if in fact I am right, and that is a subject that is being watched. Almost everything discussed at the various boards is completely harmless and kept within very safe and predictable boundaries.

But I am far from certain about any of this. I am not so much trying to explain what is happening or why, rather I am saying that something is happening and that there are far too many coincidences and too many patterns that match up to what we know about disinformation and infiltration in the past.

No further comment but that I again plead the case that Megan ought be granted access to these closed threads, or that they be shut down to further addition of content.

No further comment but that I again plead the case that Megan ought be granted access to these closed threads, or that they be shut down to further addition of content.

Does Megan not have access? Who else does not? With whom are you pleading?

No further comment but that I again plead the case that Megan ought be granted access to these closed threads, or that they be shut down to further addition of content.

Does Megan not have access? Who else does not? With whom are you pleading?

By dint of her only recent sign-up Megan does not. As I am not actively playing admin, I leave the choice to you and/or Mairead, as I had hoped I had made clear in my earlier pm but obviously had not.

By dint of her only recent sign-up Megan does not. As I am not actively playing admin, I leave the choice to you and/or Mairead, as I had hoped I had made clear in my earlier pm but obviously had not.

Well, ownership of the domain name and control over the server is the only determing factor in the absence of any other agreement. I haven't done anything in admin for a long time. It was not clear to me that I had the authority.

Unless someone has discovered a way I don't know about to limit access, then Megan has the standard mod powers plus full run of all the fora.

Unless someone has discovered a way I don't know about to limit access, then Megan has the standard mod powers plus full run of all the fora.

well, i guess we'll see then :)

I just wanted to indicate that the type of personality to which you refer has been studied for some time and is called the authoritarian psychology. I had the displeasure of working as an adjunct for a small Catholic University, and the way I was to teach - the course materials - and the teaching philosophy and methods were all laid out for me to obey and execute.
This created a bit of a culture shock on my part, since all the shcools I have been affiliated with practiced what is probably the most fundamental value to academics: Academic Freedom.

Russell

I just wanted to indicate that the type of personality to which you refer has been studied for some time and is called the authoritarian psychology. I had the displeasure of working as an adjunct for a small Catholic University, and the way I was to teach - the course materials - and the teaching philosophy and methods were all laid out for me to obey and execute.
This created a bit of a culture shock on my part, since all the shcools I have been affiliated with practiced what is probably the most fundamental value to academics: Academic Freedom.

Russell
Just out of curiosity, Russell, what orders ran them?

I am not altogether familiar with Catholcism so please excuse my ignorance if I mispell or perpetrate a malrapopism, but I think it was LaSallevian, or something along those line. And., believe it or not, they are suppose to be the more sympathetic of all the orders to the plight of the poor and meager who want to obtain educations. I just wished they extended considerations to adjuncts as well
best
russell

most interesting, so much so that I have been piqued to respond despite my disinterest in populating these private threads...

Grabbed from the top of the DU greatest page:


http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/15/532 /

Silenced: Progressive Sites Censored
by Kriss Perras Running Waters

snip//


As of recent months, there have been many accounts of Progressive news sites and Progressive sites in general experiencing difficulty on the Web. Some sites have been completely censored off the web for a period of time such as BushFlash.com which last week was offline and in place of its home page was a Department of Homeland Security logo. The statement from the government was the site was under investigation for violations of the Patriot Act. The site was started in March 2003, after the publisher watched the corporate media completely ignore the groundswell against the coming Iraq war.

snip//

Another site owned by a prominent figure known not only to attend but organize anti-war rallies is Perceval Press, owned by Actor Viggo Mortensen. This evening Mortensen posted a note on the site stating, “Apologies to anyone who has been temporarily blocked from connecting with percevalpress.com by something called ‘(Content)Watch,’ which apparently involves state censorship dictated by moral judgments on what ‘(Content)Watch’ calls ‘Hate/Violence’ and ‘Pornography.’ I haven’t the faintest idea what could have roused the watchdogs, and, frankly, do not care to know. This is the world we live in. I certainly hope it wasn’t the recently-posted Sun-Sentinel link regarding restoration of constitutionally-guaranteed voting rights for ex-cons in Florida. We at Perceval Press will continue to provide whatever information we see fit to post on our site. Hopefully you will be allowed to view this information at your personal discretion so as to be able to draw your private conclusions with regard to ‘content.’ Happy Easter.”

snip//


In the name of National Security, numerous sites have been removed from the Web including Raisethefist.com, an alternative media site conversing on a diversity of subjects including anarchism, activism, and current events not reported by mainstream media.

The site is active again and states, ” On Jan 24, 2002 the FBI, Secret Service Los Angeles Joint-terror Task Force armed with sub-machine guns, shot guns, and bullet-proof vests raided the home of Sherman Austin (former webmaster of Raisethefist.com and founder of RTF Direct Action Network). Sherman Austin was 18 years old at the time. Federal agents came armed and ready to kill with the house completely surrounded and guns drawn before approaching the front door. They left with all computer equipment and political literature seized. A week later he attended the World Economic Forum protests in New York where he was arrested by the FBI for “distribution of information related to explosives or weapons of mass destruction”. However Sherman never distributed or authored any information about explosives. In fact the FBI referred to a completely different site authored by a completely different individual (whom they visited and questioned in person) but purposely lied, fabricated evidence, and lied in court documents to frame Sherman and paint him as a terrorist. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to a year in federal prison on Aug 4, 2003. He was released a year later with 3 years of strict probation which prohibits him from having access to a computer as well as knowingly associating with individuals who “espouse violence for political change.”

In 2001, the fan discussion forum “Rage Against The Machine” was shutdown because the FBI called the ISP stating too much anti-American rhetoric was posted on the board. In February 2003, the popular alternative news publication YellowTimes.org was shut down without explanation.

Control or suppression of the publishing or accessing of information on the Internet is a violation of free speech. You wouldn’t put up with censorship if you were on a street corner rally holding a sign with your own political point of view - be it a sign that states “support our troops” or one that says “Clinton Lied. Nobody died.”

I am not altogether familiar with Catholcism so please excuse my ignorance if I mispell or perpetrate a malrapopism, but I think it was LaSallevian, or something along those line. And., believe it or not, they are suppose to be the more sympathetic of all the orders to the plight of the poor and meager who want to obtain educations. I just wished they extended considerations to adjuncts as well
best
russell

hmmm...doesn't sound familiar to me, either. I wondered whether it was the Jesuits, as they have a reputation for being more scholarly than priestly in many ways. But I've not been a mackeral snapper in 50 years, so who knows.

Lovely typo, though (malrapopism) :mrgreen:

I am not altogether familiar with Catholcism so please excuse my ignorance if I mispell or perpetrate a malrapopism, but I think it was LaSallevian, or something along those line. And., believe it or not, they are suppose to be the more sympathetic of all the orders to the plight of the poor and meager who want to obtain educations. I just wished they extended considerations to adjuncts as well
best
russell

hmmm...doesn't sound familiar to me, either. I wondered whether it was the Jesuits, as they have a reputation for being more scholarly than priestly in many ways. But I've not been a mackeral snapper in 50 years, so who knows.

Lovely typo, though (malrapopism) :mrgreen:

Its likely this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_ ... stitutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_educational_institutions)

I am not altogether familiar with Catholcism so please excuse my ignorance if I mispell or perpetrate a malrapopism, but I think it was LaSallevian, or something along those line. And., believe it or not, they are suppose to be the more sympathetic of all the orders to the plight of the poor and meager who want to obtain educations. I just wished they extended considerations to adjuncts as well
best
russell

hmmm...doesn't sound familiar to me, either. I wondered whether it was the Jesuits, as they have a reputation for being more scholarly than priestly in many ways. But I've not been a mackeral snapper in 50 years, so who knows.

Lovely typo, though (malrapopism) :mrgreen:

Its likely this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_ ... stitutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_educational_institutions)

Hey kid... Time for you to make a useful contribution, again. You got the skills.

Hate to prod, but... (prod, prod)...

Some biting, public, social criticism is needed ...and you're short.

.

Its likely this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_ ... stitutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_educational_institutions)
I'm sure you're right...and indeed I've never heard of them, that I can recall.

I am not altogether familiar with Catholcism so please excuse my ignorance if I mispell or perpetrate a malrapopism, but I think it was LaSallevian, or something along those line. And., believe it or not, they are suppose to be the more sympathetic of all the orders to the plight of the poor and meager who want to obtain educations. I just wished they extended considerations to adjuncts as well
best
russell

hmmm...doesn't sound familiar to me, either. I wondered whether it was the Jesuits, as they have a reputation for being more scholarly than priestly in many ways. But I've not been a mackeral snapper in 50 years, so who knows.

Lovely typo, though (malrapopism) :mrgreen:

Its likely this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_ ... stitutions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lasallian_educational_institutions)


Hey kid... Time for you to make a useful contribution, again. You got the skills.

Hate to prod, but... (prod, prod)...

Some biting, public, social criticism is needed ...and you're short.

.

The nerve!

I don't have alot, I've been "busy". I have been thinking about the VT shooting for a while. No way did this go down like they claimed. Think about: 23 yo student with no history of handling firearms buys a Glock one month ago.

A month later hes an expert shooter (including hitting moving targets), hes doing speed reloads like an expert (with a Glock), and his kill ratio is sky-high - sounds like double or triple tapping. Why file off serial numbers if its a suicide run?

All the bullets came from the Glock I think so what was the .22 for? A hit (lol)? Its a terrible idea as a backup, better to have a mag in your offhand. Or a second 9mm..

Where does a college student get money for guns, ammo, vests, etc?

CT alert:

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/fo ... ead=102928 (http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=102928)

And some stuff on prozac:



The Scourge of Prozac

When I first heard about the Columbine High School massacre, my initial thought was, "Lord help us, were they taking Prozac?" Nine days later, it was reported that Eric Harris, one of the shooters, was taking Luvox, which, like Prozac, Zoloft and Paxil, belongs to the class of drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). In one out of every 25 children taking it, Luvox causes mania, "a psychosis characterized by exalted feelings, delusions of grandeur…and overproduction of ideas."

Guns Are Blamed, but What About Prescription Drugs?

Likely due to pressure from the pharmaceutical industry-heavy advertisers in all media-the national debate on the epidemic of teen violence has ignored the widespread use of prescription drugs in teens and particularly those who have committed monstrous acts. However, the drug-violence link is frighteningly common. Fifteen-year-old Shawn Cooper of Notus, Idaho, fired a shotgun at students and school staff. According to his stepfather, he had been taking an SSRI. Thirteen-year-old Chris Fetters of Iowa killed her favorite aunt. She was taking Prozac. Kip Kinkel, a 15-year-old youth, went on a rampage in Oregon. He first shot and killed his parents, spent the night with the bodies (characteristic of the dissociative reaction these drugs often cause), then killed two and wounded 22 of his fellow students at Thurston High School. He was taking Prozac.

SSRI Drugs Can Turn People Into Monsters

Look, folks, these are the acts of monsters. The accessibility of guns and violent movies alone does not create monsters out of children. But prescription drugs that markedly alter brain chemistry can-and do! Particularly drugs like Prozac, which are, in my opinion, the chemical equivalent of a ghoulish Stephen King monster hiding in the closet. A few people have tried to warn the neighborhood, but no one is listening. And SSRIs don't backfire in children only. In November 1991, 66-year-old Barbara Mortenson attacked her 81-year-old mother, biting her more than 20 times and leaving chunks of flesh strewn on the floor. Barbara had been taking Prozac for the previous two weeks. Kristine Marie Cushing, age 39, had been separated from her husband for several months. In October 1991, she took a .38-caliber pistol and shot and killed both of her children, Elizabeth age 8, and Stephanie Marie, age 4, while they lay sleeping in their beds, then shot herself, inflicting a non-fatal wound. Prosecutors stated that they "couldn't find one iota of information to show that she was anything but a very giving, caring and sweet human being." After a plea of insanity, she was committed to a mental institution. What made her snap? She had been taking Prozac. Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D., author of Prozac: Panacea or Pandora?, has been studying the violent, dark side of SSRI drugs for ten years. She has researched 32 murder/suicides that involved women and their children. By interviewing their families and studying autopsy reports, news accounts and medical histories, she has determined that in 24 of these 32 cases, the women were taking Prozac or another SSRI.

These Drugs Alter Normal Brain Function

The explosive nature of these drugs is predictable. Studies show that they can cause a condition known as akathisia. Akathisia comes from the Greek word meaning "can't sit still," and refers to significant physical and mental agitation. Akathisia is to violence what a match is to gasoline. This condition has been reported in one out of 16 Prozac users, but its incidence is likely under-reported because Prozac also produces mania, hypomania, anxiety and restlessness, which are first cousins of akathisia. The defenders of Prozac say that millions are being helped by it, but this claim is spurious. In the clinical trials submitted to the FDA for registration, Eli Lilly studied the drug in less than 300 people and for only four or six weeks. However, one out of every seven participants dropped out of the study because of side effects of the drug. In fact, in a recent evaluation of the usage of Prozac and other SSRIs, it was found that nearly 70% of those who are prescribed the drug do not take it as prescribed, probably due to its undesirable side effects. Imagine that, for a drug touted to make people feel better! Furthermore, there are no studies demonstrating that taking any antidepressant prevents suicide or violent behavior. In fact, according to Peter Breggin, M.D., author of Your Drug May Be Your Problem, "there is substantial evidence that many classes of psychiatric drugs-including antidepressants, such as SSRIs-can cause or exacerbate depression, suicide, paranoia and violence." Did you know that one out of every 12 patients (and this figure, too, is likely under-reported) admitted to mental hospitals for psychosis is taking SSRIs?

Even the Bright Side of SSRIs Is Dark

As Dr. Breggin points out in his earlier book, Talking Back to Prozac, these drugs rob people of their humanity-they lose their capacity for empathy. "A lot of what we are seeing is individuals losing their feeling for the people in their lives. They stop caring about their husbands or wives or children. They stop caring about God." Though zombie-like numbness may initially be felt to be an improvement by someone with depression, it can hardly be considered healthy, or even desirable. It is this loss of empathy in my opinion, that allowed Kip Kinkel to kill both of his parents, then spend the night in the same room before heading out to shoot his classmates in Oregon. It is precisely why Eric Harris could wander around shooting his classmates in Columbine High School, even kids he liked, and laugh about it. It's beyond my comprehension how any doctor could knowingly prescribe a drug that may generate violence and numb the individual to its consequences!

We Are the Drug Companies' Guinea Pigs

This is not the first time Eli Lilly and other large drug companies have polluted our culture with mind-altering, hallucinogenic drugs. Did you know that Eli Lilly first produced and marketed LSD as a legal drug in the 1950s, promoting it as an aid to psychoanalysis, a cure for alcoholism and a way to clear up mental illness? Did you know that PCP, often referred to as angel dust-one of the most dangerous street drugs because it produces irrational, violent behavior-was once legally marketed as an analgesic and painkiller by Parke-Davis? Did you know that both LSD and angel dust act by increasing serotonin levels in the brain, precisely the same mechanism of SSRIs? Dr. Tracy reports that people who have taken LSD in the past sometimes have LSD flashbacks when given Prozac or a similar drug. These drugs are not helping people. At best, they blunt your experience of both the joys and the sorrows of the human experience. At worst, they are our most frightening nightmare.

More SSRI-induced Tragedies

Two years ago, Matthew Miller had achieved every 13-year-old boy's dream-he had reached 100 pounds. He had also changed schools and was a little melancholy. He saw a psychiatrist, who gave him some samples of Zoloft, an SSRI, with the instructions to "give it a try for a week." His parents were happy and trusting, though a little perplexed that it all seemed so easy and that no other form of therapy was even mentioned to help Matthew with what they felt was a common adjustment reaction for a child his age. The drug produced akathisia in Matthew. His sister complained that he was being loud and bothering her more than normal. His grandmother noted that Matthew "could hardly sit still through our Sunday brunch." In the early morning hours of his seventh day on Zoloft, Matthew committed suicide. He hanged himself in his closet. His father, now painfully aware of what these drugs can do, wrote: "There was no cry for help. No scream. Nothing…but that single, fateful, horrifying and irreversible act. For a bright, healthy and loved young man, Matt had every reason to live. Yet under the power of this debilitating drug, he found a way to die. We know it was not our Matt who took his own life. This was a Matt 'high' on a legalized pill. Reality and nightmares became indistinguishable for him. The universe that was his chemically stimulated, serotonin-enriched, emotionally tortured brain came crashing down around him with such ferocity, he had no way out."

We Must Get the Word Out

Drug companies are pushing to sell more and more SSRIs, thereby drugging larger segments of our population. Believe it or not, it's reported that many children under the age of three have already been given Prozac, and it will soon be made in flavored form for children! Folks, you must educate yourself and others on this issue. There are at least two current lawsuits against Pfizer, the manufacturer of Zoloft. The family of the late television actor Phil Hartman claims that Brynn Hartman, Phil's wife and the mother of their two children, aged 9 and 7, was under the influence of Zoloft when she shot and killed her husband while he was sleeping, then killed herself. Another SSRI murder-suicide. The family of Matthew Miller is also suing the company over the fatal consequences of this drug in their son. As evidence like this mounts, the tide is bound to turn against these dangerous drugs and, just like LSD and PCP, I believe they will ultimately be taken off the market. It's just a question of how much human suffering must be endured before that occurs.

LOL, alot of my stuff would probably fit better at Rigorous Intuition than on here :)

What about the topic of the thread?

This pattern keeps showing up, and it is associated with a particular sort of uproar on boards. I think that it is possible that this pattern of writing may be a technique being used intentionally, rather than merely stylistic. It has a hypnotic effect, and it jumps from topic to topic as though people are being surreptitiously led to connect things in their minds. It is almost as though the sentences were artificially constructed using a schematic into which a string of nouns are then inserted.

Here is a sample. This is an actual post:

I could get a headache reading this thread.

Labels just complicate our problem.

The "money" realities are neither complex or a secret.

Banking as conducted currently is a false complexity of abstracts
crafted to make the simple appear a mystery.

Almost all political conflict is engineered by the direction of "money".

Monopoly control over money creation and destruction is the fundamental tool of power over mankind.

Money power buys, promotes, manipulates and destroys almost every political bandwagon and faction to serve further concentration of this power.

Discussion of the complexities and ambiguities of these distractions can not solve progress for freedom and truth.

They are all artificial. This field belongs to "money".

We need to build unity around correct principles.

Organisation is secondary.

We need to discover and expand the knowledge of how an honest "money" system should work.

This is a scientific undertaking if we agree on a conception of reality.

The first step is the implementation of a national or even more decentralised dividend that allows the essential growth of the money supply but delivers in a democratic form so every citizen then has money votes to direct the productive and service capacity of the community.

This dividend would need to be a transparent calculated sum that represents the real wealth of any society above the present dividends of investment and the renumeration for labour and skill.

The honest costs of production have always been extinguished in the physical process. In fact what is created in most productive activity is an increase in future potential. This is the real credit that must be distributed in the form of a social dividend.

Currently this productive credit is only consumed by expanding the debt{liabilities} of individuals or the nation.

Hence as the wealth of a community expands it is claimed by the "money creators" who monetise the communities wealth.

What is so interesting and revealing in political circles of discussion is that this type of genuine freedom is not advanced by some people who use the words "freedom", "democracy" and "constitutionalism".

Even the language we use to debate our freedom path have been sabotaged by the money power.

The abstractions swirling around the latest financial wealth crisis drown the contradictions of abundant material wealth reality.

The truth is before our eyes.

Hi
There,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I was hoping that I might have your permission to republish it on an affiliate site to the Populist Party of America.
Let me know,
Russell Cole

Hi
There,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I was hoping that I might have your permission to republish it on an affiliate site to the Populist Party of America.
Let me know,
Russell Cole

Hi
There,
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I was hoping that I might have your permission to republish it on an affiliate site to the Populist Party of America.
Let me know,
Russell Cole
Not sure which post you are referencing. If it is one of mine, then "yes" is always the answer.