'Freak' elevator death at Young & Rubicam spook firm.

[Canadian_watcher]

oh you guys... *sigh*
you make a girl want to pull her hair out

merry merry and all that. tis the season. blah blah blah.

I still think you've got to stop getting worked up when someone creates a thread that you don't like. I mean get some perspective already. it's one thread on a bulletin board. one thread that you do NOT have to visit. one thread that in no way implicates you or anyone else. it's one thread on a bulletin board that, no matter how highly you think of said bulletin board, hasn't made one iota of difference on the grand scale of the planet so even if we let crazed fascists in here posting to their hearts content it couldn't really lower the productivity of the board as a whole.. not in real terms, anyway. (not that I want to endure crazed fascistic postings, btw)

hugh is colourful, I don't believe he is consistently delusional, and I truly believe that he's got a valid point with the predictive programming angle. If he's more deeply in to it than you or I are, so be it! but why anyone feels the need to attack when faced with one of his posts is, to me, a signifier of weakness and pettiness. What other reason could there be?

I thank you for the hug and even the sticky-outie-tongue. back at you both.

ideas are either wierd or they aren't ideas. be wierd. that's all I gotta say.

[Searcher08]

))
One thing I have seen happen many times is that often when there is really aerated response to an idea, it's often worth looking at and exploring. One personal experience I had was trying to talk to astronomers at the local university about life on other planets when I was a kid. Now that 'space scientists' have decreed that we are 'getting evidence', it is deemed ok by them to think about.

My main issues with Hugh's approach are that he claims it is within the realm of science - so I am intrigued by it's potential predictive value, but all his stuff seems retro-active; the other thing is - it is a model - why not OTHER models? Compare and Contrast? Pic and Mix?
My family relative proposed a model for TV content driven by "avoiding offending the sponsor" + "We dont wanna get SUED WAAAH!!!" seems preety cool too !:)

My favourite weird idea...
When I was at uni doing maths, I asked about what might happen if something had a fractional dimension (like a line = 1 , a circle = 2, a solid ball = 3 - what is 1 1/2 ? ... my lecturers told me about the Sierpinski triangle. A space with fractal dimension about 1.5 Totally nuts. Half way between a line and an area.

[slomo]

:)))
One thing I have seen happen many times is that often when there is really aerated response to an idea, it's often worth looking at and exploring. One personal experience I had was trying to talk to astronomers at the local university about life on other planets when I was a kid. Now that 'space scientists' have decreed that we are 'getting evidence', it is deemed ok by them to think about.

My main issues with Hugh's approach are that he claims it is within the realm of science - so I am intrigued by it's potential predictive value, but all his stuff seems retro-active; the other thing is - it is a model - why not OTHER models? Compare and Contrast? Pic and Mix?
My family relative proposed a model for TV content driven by "avoiding offending the sponsor" + "We dont wanna get SUED WAAAH!!!" seems preety cool too !:)

My favourite weird idea...
When I was at uni doing maths, I asked about what might happen if something had a fractional dimension (like a line = 1 , a circle = 2, a solid ball = 3 - what is 1 1/2 ? ... my lecturers told me about the Sierpinski triangle. A space with fractal dimension about 1.5 Totally nuts. Half way between a line and an area.

Ugh. Back when I was an undergrad taking graduate math classes for "honors" credit, we had to compute the dimensions of beasts such as those. Fun times. Not.

Still, these days when I get tired of conspirotainment and the deluge of stories that prove we are circling the drain, I find a bit of existential relief reading the math pages on wiki.

[Searcher08]

Awwww, slomo - <sends mathematical hug>

Here are two golden dragons for you
One with fractal dimension of Phi

One without...

[slomo]

Awwww, slomo - <sends mathematical hug>

Here are two golden dragons for you
One with fractal dimension of Phi

One without...

Thanks.... I do like dragons, tho.

There are actually different definitions/kinds of dimension, and they don't always agree (where they can be defined for the same type of object). What most people think of as "dimension" is vector space or manifold dimension, which is necessarily an integer. The kind of dimension that corresponds to fractal dimension has to do with coverings, usually so-called Hausdorff dimension. There are a few other kinds (thankfully I've expunged them from my mind), but on the weird sets like Cantor and Serpienski Triangle, they don't necessarily agree. They all agree on the easy-to-fathom spaces, i.e. vector spaces and differentiable manifolds. Anyway, too much useless geekiness... Bah Humbug

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

MODS-

These math and dragon posts have NOTHING to do with the OP.

The OP is about the use of elevators to carry out the inside job of 9/11, decoyed in 'spooky elevator death' movies,' and re-decoyed during the bogus 'end of Iraq War' psyops campaign with deliberate murders in elevators...to pre-empt and displace potential publicity and awareness of the war's origin using covert ops.

[DrVolin]

The ideas promoted by Hugh (I hesitate to say Hugh's ideas) and a model of programing driven by fear of litigation are by no means mutually exclusive. In fact, they are highly compatible.

[Searcher08]

MODS-

These math and dragon posts have NOTHING to do with the OP.

The OP is about the use of elevators to carry out the inside job of 9/11, decoyed in 'spooky elevator death' movies,' and re-decoyed during the bogus 'end of Iraq War' psyops campaign with deliberate murders in elevators...to pre-empt and displace potential publicity and awareness of the war's origin using covert ops.

Here is some more maths

ONE
How specifically would the success of that process be measured in quantifiable terms?

TWO
My response to the OP brought up the issue of search personalisation - how does your KWH model fit extensive evidence of Google's focus being on delivery of personalised search results?

[Wombaticus Rex]

be wierd. that's all I gotta say.

Amen. As an operational guiding principle for RI 2012, I like this quite a bit.

why anyone feels the need to attack when faced with one of his posts is, to me, a signifier of weakness and pettiness. What other reason could there be?

I know, right? Totally.

[slomo]

MODS-

These math and dragon posts have NOTHING to do with the OP.

The OP is about the use of elevators to carry out the inside job of 9/11, decoyed in 'spooky elevator death' movies,' and re-decoyed during the bogus 'end of Iraq War' psyops campaign with deliberate murders in elevators...to pre-empt and displace potential publicity and awareness of the war's origin using covert ops.

Really, Hugh? You're the sole courageous exposer of the dastardly deeds of the all-powerful CIA (so powerful that they can anticipate cultural trends ten years in advance and control the most minute details of the daily news cycle) and yet you can't deal with three OT posts about -gasp- mathematics without calling for help from your Big Brother moderators!? Meanwhile, you heap abuse upon others with terms such as "asshole", "idiot", and thinly veiled accusations that many of us are paid purveyors of disinformation? Can you not see that this makes you look utterly pathetic?

[Simulist]

MODS-

These math and dragon posts have NOTHING to do with the OP.

The OP is about the use of elevators to carry out the inside job of 9/11, decoyed in 'spooky elevator death' movies,' and re-decoyed during the bogus 'end of Iraq War' psyops campaign with deliberate murders in elevators...to pre-empt and displace potential publicity and awareness of the war's origin using covert ops.

Really, Hugh? You're the sole courageous exposer of the dastardly deeds of the all-powerful CIA (so powerful that they can anticipate cultural trends ten years in advance and control the most minute details of the daily news cycle) and yet you can't deal with three OT posts about -gasp- mathematics without calling for help from your Big Brother moderators!? Meanwhile, you heap abuse upon others with terms such as "asshole", "idiot", and thinly veiled accusations that many of us are paid purveyors of disinformation? Can you not see that this makes you look utterly pathetic?

Hear, hear.

Ever since Hugh referred to one of the posters on this board — a survivor of horrific and depersonalizing abuse — as "it," I don't give a shit what he has to say about anything.

[slomo]

MODS-

These math and dragon posts have NOTHING to do with the OP.

The OP is about the use of elevators to carry out the inside job of 9/11, decoyed in 'spooky elevator death' movies,' and re-decoyed during the bogus 'end of Iraq War' psyops campaign with deliberate murders in elevators...to pre-empt and displace potential publicity and awareness of the war's origin using covert ops.

Here is some more maths

ONE
How specifically would the success of that process be measured in quantifiable terms?

TWO
My response to the OP brought up the issue of search personalisation - how does your KWH model fit extensive evidence of Google's focus being on delivery of personalised search results?

Here's some more maths. I'll buy into the hypothesis that mass media is manipulated by alphabet agencies to subtly shift population sentiment. I'll even go so far as to accept that media products that on the surface seem to have anti-authoritarian or anti-war agendas (as Simulist just opined re: War Horse) may actually have targeted subliminal pro-war messages (e.g. war = comaraderie). But here's the thing: in order for institutions and agencies to buy into a program (something I know something about), there must be statistical evidence that the program is likely to achieve intended results. Some form of law-of-large-numbers is mathematically necessary in order for a pilot program to be sufficiently powered to provide any kind of convincing evidence. Mass media programs such as movies could achieve such statistical power (i.e. statistically measurable results). However, the kind of fine-tune "keyword hijacking" program that characterizes Hugh's strong KWH hypothesis requires a covariate space that is so sparse that the conditional effects would be impossible to measure. On the other hand, the cost of implementing such a program would be astronomical. The ROI would never justify its adoption. Until Hugh can provide specific evidence to counteract this critique, I remain a skeptic of his strong KWH hypothesis.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

.....
Ever since Hugh referred to one of the posters on this board — a survivor of horrific and depersonalizing abuse — as "it," I don't give a shit what he has to say about anything.

Just look at your username and sig quote.

"There really is no 'me.' There only seems to be."
— Simulist

There's is NO way to know any username's gender. That's all that was.
And several have admitted to using a different gender username for effect.
And gender comes with tons of subliminal framing, something used for advantage in infowar.

So trying to portray me as a dog-kicking abused-person slamming ogre is just ridiculous.
And that username had attacked me over and over and over quite viciously. Didja know that?
Provocation tactics work on boards quite well. Attack attack attack and then when there's a response, accuse and badjacket. s.o.p.

So stop going ad-hominem and disrupting the thread. Focus on content, please.

[Simulist]

You don't provide a shred of sound reasoning for most of your arguments, Hugh. This thread is but one example.

Psyops is one thing — and it's real — Keyword Hijacking is something altogether different because, as showcased by you, it is observably fiction.

KWH is also a foil, in my opinion — whether a deliberate foil (which I still tend to doubt) to poison the well concerning inquiries into real psyops in media, or merely a laughably useful one.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

[

.....
Psyops is one thing — and it's real — Keyword Hijacking is something altogether different because, as showcased by you, it is observably fiction.
.....

That's like saying that gravity has nothing to do with construction of buildings or towns.
Keywords have been the basis of culture, mnemonics, media, and propaganda since even before the intenet made it the 'gold standard.'

Zipf's Law?
Adjective checklists?
Semantic priming?
Lexical priming?
Mutual exclusivity?

Real stuff. For decades.

You think it was a coincidence that we got 'Casablanca' at the same time as the Casablanca Conference?
You think it was a coincidence that when soldiers sued for being turned into testing guinea pigs that CIA-DIsney put out a film about
guinea pigs turned into soldiers?

No, I'm not going to dump all I've found on this board. So go ahead and ignore what is obvious and easily searchable. Your choice.

CIA whistleblowers have told us about the linking of Paramilitary+Psychological Operations to use media to exploit created events on the ground.
I could list murders and sabotage and 'accidents' staged as this form of keyword news cycle management but this is not the place for that dangerous info.

I probably shouldn't have pointed out this decoy murder in public. I'd like to prevent its use.
Just keep an eye out for this trick. It's deadly and clever.