(My apologies to RI readers for this bit below. For many months now Professor Pan has been hurling invective at me in threads about psy-ops and this is my verbal fisticuffs rebuke. You might want to look away. There are better things to read.)
professorpan wrote:Yet you LIE you LIE you LIE and say that I never do rebutt you and you use your negative framing tactic of saying I "always slink off" just becausenow I've figure out what you are, Pan.
Still waiting for an answer to what I am, Hugh.
And you won't be able to slink away from this one, pal, cuz the Panster's gonna dog your slippery heels until you reply!
Pan, you are
>dishonest about a number of things, not the least of which is your claims about our past debates.
>a coincidentalist as demonstrated by your 'pal's' teapot charade closely followed by his admonitions to give up on 9/11 and media.
>an anti-conspiracist for constantly scoffing at me for suggesting there's some "over-arching vast conspiracy."
Yeah, that's what the State Department does, in fact do. They conspire on psy-ops programs as is well-documented.
When I started presenting the idea of keyword hijacking you deflected it with several different methods.
1) First, you said 'must art have meaning inflicted on it?' And you were roundly criticized for suggesting that human artifacts could be devoid of human meaning or values.
You posited something that is impossible by definition and got called out for it.
2) You actually suggested that I was being a fascist for coercing my values on the artifacts being considered for scrutiny. In other words, you reversed my intentions and actions meant to reveal embedded fascist mind viruses.
3) In a thread I wasn't in someone else brought up keyword hijacking and you piped in with "please, let's not resort to
news-speak."
Um, news-speak is used to hide meaning. Keyword hijacking exposes hidden meanings, exactly the opposite again.
4) After I posted in my 'Project Paperclip' movie thread the online resume of one of the perps, Peter Schroeder, you commented "Oh, sure. All those Germans must be Nazis."
That was a deliberate and gross distortion of what I had documented from the man's own website.
I realized that you were extremely hostile to the idea of keyword hijacking and would use blatant distortions in an effort to deflect dialogue about the topic.
5) After that you tended to use negative framing about me as "mentally imbalanced."
6) Then you resorted to using the word "honest" the way W uses "freedom," as a weapon. "If only you'd do honest research...." or
"If only you'd listen to honest criticism...."
7) Then you started leaving debates with me in exasperation in which I had presented reams of what I considered the background for my case and later you claimed that you had utterly refuted all my claims. No, you hadn't. You quit and left.
8) Then you made lots of hit-and-run snide comments.
9) Then you brought that 'pal' of yours with the bogus teapot photos to promote the anti-conspiracist theme of coincidence and I said so. It didn't take long until your 'pal' encouraged us all to forget 9/11 and psy-ops media and just "surf." And then he disappeared, another hit-and-run.
10) You claim to be a mentalist who was fascinated by misdirection yet deny such a thing occurs in propaganda media when I point it out.
11) You claim to be studied in psy-ops and not an anti-conspiracist yet you deny that any of the USG psy-ops campaigns of the last sixty years I've pointed out are in fact that. You resort to scoffing at my embrace of "some super over-arching conspiracy."
Uh, so which is it?
12) You always always claim that there is no need for any given psy-ops event and it is all old news anyway. That's quite a minimization of a multi-billion disinfo budget the CIA has deployed. Maybe you should tell them to save their dough.
13) Then in that 'Eichmann' challenge thread I put up and haven't finished due to offline stuff you only came up with ONE forestalling limited hang-out of a CIA release of damning Eichmann documents through a surrogate yet you've claimed you put up "a timeline" and that you "kicked my butt." Lots of chest-pounding over nada.
14) Then you resorted to hurling obscenities by calling what I was writing about "keyword jackoffing."
15) Once you actually wrote that what I was exploring should be considered. Once.
I wonder if you were seeing if this would shut me up.
And there are other trespasses against reasonable discourse I could list, too.
To recap, you are a coincidentalist, an anti-conspiracist, a rude bully, intellectually dishonest, and a liar.
I apologize for leaving this accusation dangling briefly without expanding on it.
I shouldn't have done that.
I think that answers your question.
) knows that the 'keyword' method is in some ways kind of old and obsolete now, for example pretty much no modern search engine pays attention to the HTML meta tags any more because they're so easy to cheat.
