Searcher08's lengthy complaint

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Searcher08's lengthy complaint

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 07, 2013 7:14 pm

This is definitely not formatted as a concise complaint - perhaps not even as a coherent complaint, but I do have similar concerns about AD's discourse, tone, and comport through recent discussions.

I was asked to share this, so with apologies for the length, share it I shall.

PM is as follows:

Searcher08 wrote:
Wombaticus Rex wrote:thank you for that - valuable and patient moderation - hugely appreciated.


Hi WR
Thank you for your kind comment. I made a choice to try and step inside other's shoes during this thread (apart from MiB who is just here for the skepti-LULZ), but I just kept feeling something was really 'out'. SLADs decision to quit caused me to think that some NLP forensics would be useful tool here to observe if there are any patterns. So I DID and just looked at actual words said. Below is the email I sent SLAD - it is long and detailed -and I wanted to share it with you because it shows a clear pattern - I do not want to pre-empt what you think of it. It took me a couple of hours and this was only the first ten or so pages, so I've stopped here.

In all the time I have been at RI, I think this is the first time I have asked for formal Moderation and would appreciate if you felt appropriate to discuss with Jeff and the other Mods.

On a personal note, i would FAR rather be spending my time talking about cybernetics, A.I. et al
with yourself and sorry for taking your time up with this nonsense.

cheers
Ki





*** STARTS
Dear Slad,

Your decision to leave has been a huge shock - and as a result of it, I felt a really weird sensation around the Icke threa. There was something not right at all going on and I couldnt put my finger on it, it was like I was too close.
So I took a deep breath and plunged in - looking JUST at ADs posts, in chronologiacl order in the thread.

I am very disturbed by what I have found and am sharing the results of what I have done so far with you. It makes very uncomfortable reading. You slad and to a lesser extent CW and myself have been , will you tell me what your impression on reading this is?

My comments have '** ' at the start of the line

Of course that's a very, very weak defense for a person who conveys lots of highly questionable information as well as some "true" stuff...

** Does not say HOW the comments are a weak defense

Who wants to drink a big glass of Kool Aid with extra vitamins?
It's at least 50% pure!

** Argumentation by Analogy: Kids drink Kool Aid without harm -

The astute reader will notice how the defenders of Icke have worked so hard to avoid actually engaging with the content of the video.
Unfortunately, this is true to form and by now is clearly part of a very strong pattern...

** Appeal to authority: the astute reader
**worked so hard - HOW, Specifically did they work hard?
**Which defenders of Icke is unspecified
**Says true to form AND there is a very strong pattern (bolded)

(Noticing how they still avoid engaging with the actual specific content of the video)...
** Specific content bolded
**Which 'specific content' is left ambiguous - and as the video has two levels -Icke and **commentary - this creates confusion as to WHICH level to deal with. Hold that thought for **laterlevel to deal with

*Next post is a copy and paste from the OP
The magic is in his ability to dispense seemingly innocuous tidbits of (allegedly true) earth history one moment, then slipping in talk of aliens
crossbreeding with humans the next moment. Talk sane, touch on some crazy, go back to the safety of sane. Rinse and repeat until the listener can swallow the crazy with the sane.

**innocuous to WHOM? is not specified
**tidbits? What are tidbits? Which sources have been examined before aliens crossbreeding with humans is dismissed?
**** Later in the thread AD will say this is possible - yet here is reposting and bolding a section that calls it crazy

When the author of the OP is challenged by SLAD posting other material of his, AD responds

The above represent other favorite distraction techniques used when the subject of David Icke is on the table.
Once again, part of a long, long pattern.
Notice how they're still not engaging with the actual content...

** So this is saying SLAD is using a
** ) 'favourite distraction technique, implying this has been selected
** which she has done for a long time and
** not engaging with actual content

**This actually clearly implies SLAD is a shill

When slim tries to engage AD with something of higher information quality than the original video, this happens:

I just gave some good quotes 15 minutes ago or so...
* = NO, I will not do thatSo no

AD now re-posts to slim again, as if he is answering slim, but is actually just reposting
identically - with this highlighted AGAIN for the third time - and we are only on page 2

seemingly innocuous tidbits of (allegedly true) earth history one moment, then slipping in talk of aliens crossbreeding with humans the next moment. Talk sane, touch on some crazy, go back to the safety of sane. Rinse and repeat until the listener can swallow the crazy with the
sane.

AD now posts from an article from icke-exposed.co.uk

Icke's position regarding the Protocols is pathetic. Show me the great logicians wisdom:

** Note the word 'logician' here
** Hasnt said HOW his position is pathetic?


Actually anti-Semitism is way on the back burner for me as to why I think David Icke is bad news. Read over this thread carefully- and the

Reptile thread, and the peoples' voice thread- and you will see.
* How can anti-Semitism be on the back burner for you when you are later quoting him as being a neo-Nazi?

I would say that it is slad who is rather monomaniacal about Holocausts- "You didn't mention this one- you didn't mention that one" as

somehow representing a coherent defense of the Ickean world view.

Also I should mention that I am on very friendly terms with the Corrie Family and am very much connected to the organizing going on now

for justice in Palestine, so I am very aware of how spurious charges of "anti-Semitism" are used to attack positive efforts.

But I still think David Icke and his pals- basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the

Protocols are essentially true- brings nothing but the kiss of death to real organizing for Palestinian Liberation.

** Who are David Icke and his pals here? - well they are specified as
basically any person who traffics in Nazi Holocaust revisionism or denial or might claim that the Protocols are essentially true

Surely 'any 'defender of Icke' is a pal of Icke => Icke defenders = Holocaust deniers

**This is actually again very anti-SLAD -
** specific criticism about ADs communication patterns
** is reframed as
** "representing a coherent defense of the Ickean world view"

Logically, this is calling SLAD, slim and myself Holocaust Deniers

Next C_W writes NOT about the Video, but about the video makers opinion piece, (the one which has been which has been quoted three times)

Thanks for responding to the content of this.
Are you the only one who might kinda like David Icke who has done so?
*So here CW is not now a 'true believer' but just a 'might kinda like'...
* So the content is now the written Commentary - NOT what either Icke said in the video OR the videomakers Commentary!!!

For the record, I personally do not know Icke to be insane. I have no idea what makes him tick, really. I do sometimes wonder if he is a conscious disinformation agent but I have no compelling evidence regarding his motivation whatsoever.
** This is absolutely NOT how AD relates to Icke later


The quote though is important because it shows how his argument can be coherent and evidence-based one minute and then very much not the next. That is classic "poison pill" material.
** The quote demonstrates from the OP demonstrates nothing of the sort - this conclusion is nothing short of a magic trick conjured out of mid air! - which is then

** anchored to the expression"poision pill".
** Blimey!!



slim asks
How about looking at what he's said, in full context and taking it from there. You havent quoted a single thing that Icke has said yet.

Sorry slim, if you do actually want to discuss the content of the original post now- and not just endlessly distract away from it through ad hominems, guilt by association, changing the subject, etc., then it's got to include the original post and all the context, critique and analysis
that implies.

**So a list of accusations are now made against slim, but NONE OF THEM are specific

distract away through ad hominems
guilt by association
changing the subject

** but no point has AD made a single specific claim - just a laundry list of general accusations
against slim

then it's got to include the original post and all the context, critique and analysis that implies.
**It's GOT TO? WHO says?

Simply decontextualizing the Icke quotes just won't do, if you really do intend to change your tune...
** Here AD is actually the one de-contextualising Icke - he is refusing to deal with Icke's words in their original context, but REMOVED -
**AD is refusing to talk direectly about Icke at all, he is talking about MiB commentary on MiB's video about Icke

SLAD agrees with slim...

So solace puts up some actual Icke quotes...

AD
** So now having just attacked slim for requesting quotes

What about the quotes that solace dug up?
Have the supporters of Icke responded substantively to those disturbing revelations?

** He now rubbishes slims response
None that I know of, with the exception of slimouse- who did classic Public Relations "spin control", slightly acknowledging the concerns while quickly moving on.

**Lets unpack this...
** There was no explanation of WHERE or HOW slim did this, and quite what 'classic Public Relations' is in this context is left unspecified
** 'slightly' acknowledging some one sounds even worse than ignoring to me - it implies indifference in the face of knowledge
**'''while quickly moving on' implies avoidance / minimal interest - however NONE of slims ACTUAL WORDS were linked to any of the allegations

This in fact brings us back to the themes of the original post, which accuses David Icke of utilizing exactly the sort of thought-stopping mind control techniques which he would accuse his enemies of practicing.

Gosh, there's nothing more a reasonable person could hope for I guess. After all, the stuff solace dug up about Icke should be no cause for concern, whatsoever...

*** Blimey - this is more stuff against SLAD

Now this is wher it gets BIZARRE
as BPH says
This is a much more speculative and weaker argument man. I don't know how you prove that. Certainly that video doesn't.

AD says

I basically agree-
**Seriously W T F ???

too much grey to "prove" that Icke intentionally uses thought reform techniques.

Still, the willful ignorance
of most all of the true believers,
their stubborn intentions
never to stray too far from the herd- even
when the most unfounded and/or
* Remember that most unfounded includes 'alien hybrids', which are later admitted as a possibility by AD
reprehensible elements of Icke's world are questioned-
*
is puzzling and frustrating, to say the least.

How much is Icke's fault, how much is his followers fault? We'll never break it down into a number or anything but it's safe to say that there is a toxic convergence in David Icke land- both are at fault to a significant degree...

** Assumes that 'the fault' is divided between Icke and his supporters, without specifying it!
*What Specifically is Icke's to blame for? and why?
*What Specifically are his supporters to blame for and why?
*Safe to say there is a toxic convergence??How is it safe to say this?
** A toxic convergence of what? **Toxic how, and to whom?

=============================================================================
That is only after about 10 pages. I wondered WHY when I did a search of RI a few years 2007 ago - 8bit posted an Icke thread without AD on it - seriously read it if you can. It is like a different board. I felt I needed to talk with you about this.
love
Ki
(The post is by thecultleeder and is called What if Icke was right?)


hope you are keeping cool on this London-is-melting-me day :)

Ki

**** ENDS
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Searcher08's lengthy complaint

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Jul 07, 2013 9:49 pm

American Dream wrote:I'm led to believe by Searcher08 that he has filed some kind of complaint against me with "the mods".

I have very strong concerns about fairness with this- the facts provided, the frame, context which may have been omitted, interpretations imposed. etc.

So, if my understanding is half way correct at least, may I know the allegations that have been made against me, so that I might be able to respond, as necessary?

I would greatly appreciate it.


Austin



Wombaticus Rex wrote:To the extent they're formally "filed" it's a lengthy PM to me I have passed on to the moderator forum. Dynamics lately have put me as a lighting rod, but it's working.

The "accusations" stands as a very long PM, primarily a commentary on your posts and MIB's posts. As you're probably already aware, S08 does not feel you're operating in good faith. Still, I strongly believe the two of you can achieve parity of your own accord.

I apologize if this feels like an evasion -- I respect you and don't aim to be dismissive or, you know...punk-ass.

Happy to plug this into more mods for a broader consensus, too.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Searcher08's lengthy complaint

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:18 am

As far as I can tell, AD is just a very good rhetorician who very often refuses to answer direct questions, instead opting to reframe the questioner's questions, using many slick rhetorical techniques. His specialty seems to be strawmanning, but he's adept across the board. I don't see how any of this breaks RI board rules, but I do see that is is frustrating as fuck to those whom he is debating.

I've always had a soft spot for searcher08 because I admire his passion, but I don't really see how silencing, or even warning AD is an option at this point.

And somewhat related, I really don't see any need for action regarding C2W?'s reported posts in the Icke thread. It looks to me like more petty personality conflict B.S. between she and C_w, but petty personality conflict B.S. isn't against the rules here either.

BTW, you've been doing an admirable job in that thread, wombat. I was away most of the w/e, and I'm trying to get actual work done for my job today, or I'd be more actively involved.

In summary, though: This is a discussion board, and sometimes the discussions get heated. I've not seen any rule-breaking, however, so let them continue the discussion, which actually seems to be presenting a decent amount of good information.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Searcher08's lengthy complaint

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:57 pm

Like this:

American Dream » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:51 pm wrote:
Project Willow » Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:45 pm wrote:^ IOW, I don't think using an MC victim as a tool to discredit Icke because he is harming the cause of MC victims, among other things, is a coherent strategy, not mention an ethical one.


Can you say something about what your thoughts are on Icke overall?


What in the fuck is that? There is a certain crazy-making power to his/her disciplined circular motions.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to Moderators

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests