Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:That's messed up, c2w. Lately you'v put a helluva lot of energy into discrediting me. Got a bee in your bonnet?
You just falsely accused me of sock-puppeting
this thread**
I'm happy to hear from you that I was mistaken. And I can understand very well why you object to the suggestion that you'd ever wittingly do anything other than make a best-effort good-faith attempt to understand and debate the issues on which we differ on their various real merits.
So if the accusation was false, I both withdraw it and also sincerely apologize for having so badly misunderstood a post of rusty's that I attributed it to you. I'm hyper-sensitive to a few specific classes of what a forensic linguist might call verbal events, just as a matter of neurological wiring. And although I really do make a regular best-faith effort to check the rating I assign to verbal communications in order to adjust for any hyper-sensitivity-induced false inflation, I really do sometimes make errors that lead to it anyway. Which I sometimes so totally regret, I can't begin to tell you. Because, as in this case, that's just no excuse for errors above a certain magnitude. But fwiw, it is an explanation. Which I offer humbly, along with a promise to try my best not to repeat the error again and the hope that you'll forgive me for having made it.
Hey, when you repeatedly wrote that 'examining psyops just isn't a useful thing or good place to be as an activist,' I didn't start posting that you were really professorpan sock-puppeting just because that's the ridiculous nonsense he posted, too. Yeah, right. Ignorance is bliss. Sure.
Knowledge is just makes us fearful and depressed. CRAP.
Hugh. The reason that I can very well understand why you object to baseless suggestions that you've done stuff that you haven't done, as well as why I just sincerely apologized for mistakenly having made one is that: Guess what? I myself object to such suggestions when other people make them about me.
Which is exactly what you're doing above. And I object to it. Please either link to what you believe to be my repeated assertions that examining psyops just isn't a useful thing or a good place to be as an activist, or apologize for having falsely accused me of repeatedly making them. Fair's fair. And as long as you're at it, if you can't find any example of professorpan asserting that it's useless to examine psyops, you might also want to consider apologizing to him for the countless times you've accused him of doing so without citing one iota of evidence that he has. If you feel like it.
Why is professorpan's buddy, Zap, posting repeatedly that I've sock-puppeted the board?
I don't know. But I assume it's because he believes himself to have a good reason to say so. Why are you calling Zap "professorpan's buddy"? Because it there's any basis in fact or reason sufficient to conclude that he is -- or for that matter even to suspect that he is -- I'm totally unaware of it. And fair being fair, I'd say that you are actually required to provide something along those lines when you're making accusations of that magnitude. Or, alternatively, to apologize for making them baselessly. I leave it to you and your fair consideration of the issues on their merits to identify your obligations and take whatever actions you have to in order to responsibly meet them.
Why is this coinciding with Rusty Shackleford trying to deconstruct movies and get hostile to c2w and Jack Riddler? Opportunistic sowing of doubt?
Well....I
had thought that it was an attempt to do that. But you've now informed me that I was mistaken. So I honestly don't know.
Gee, professorpan targeted me for several years and I documented it but Jeff shuffled it off to the Firepit saying he 'didn't approve of members calling each other out on the board'-
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/v ... hp?t=17733Let's see if Jeff is consistent about that....crickets...
I'll have to read the thread at the link. But provisionally, I'd say that there's a reasonable possibility that Jeff is not being as inconsistent as you believe. Due to the better than decent possibility that you're making the same kind of perceptual processing error that results in your accusing me of repeatedly writing things that I've never written once. Just to pluck a conveniently situated example of that particular kind of error from the vast, vast fields on which they bloom and multiply like dandelions all over this board. Links to back up that assertion are available on request.
For the moment, though, I'd just like to note that it could be that you're seeing a false equivalency, where no equivalency in fact exists. Owing to a failure to adjust a sensitivity-induced error. Is what I'm saying. And I'll come back and withdraw that suggestion on edit after I've read the thread, should it prove to be unfounded
Let's see if I get mirrored by other usernames and badjacketed off the board. I have a pretty distinctive style and thousands of posts to use as a template for creating a mirror of me with little 'hints.'
But super common spelling errors are not a good tag to damn me with nor is it a good use of our bandwith. sheesh.
I haven't damned you with anything yet. I'm doing a statistical analysis. Each step of it will be fully transparent. And you'll therefore have all the resources to challenge any conclusions I might reach if and when I reach them. As I said, I've barely started. I posted the first step because I hoped that other board members might see fruitful data points that I don't see. But that's far from the only data I'm going to be looking at. Plus, I'm, like, seemingly three weeks behind on the two-sentence analysis I'd planned to post today already. So there's really not very much reason to be getting all alarmist about bandwidth wastage at this stage of the game. Please calm down. Also please try to remember that it's tactically disadvantageous to start offering preemptive defenses for accusations before they've been made, for your own sake. It's very, very unlikely to put you at risk of any adverse consequences here, but it's the kind of thing that leads to wrongful imprisonment in the real world. So, you know: Bad habit.
I don't know. But if it's relevant to what I'm looking at, I'll look at it.
c2w, I recommend you stick to the topics and stop trying to discredit those of us who debate you on the value of L. Fletcher Prouty's writings, psyops manuals, and 9/11.
I'm not trying to discredit you. I've stated on what grounds I believe the value of Prouty's writings to be debatable. You've never addressed them. I've also stated on what grounds I believe the value of citing psyops manuals to be limited. And you've never addressed those either.
I recently briefly indicated on what grounds I believe the introduction and promotion of the controlled demolition narrative to have been a psyop. But since I take it as given that you don't agree with me and I've
definitely never accused you of being complicit in either that or any other psyop,*** there's not really much there for you to address. Because beyond that, I've never done anything other than offer on-topic, in-bounds critiques of the subject when it's come up. Which you don't address whether they're offered by me or by anybody else.
However, as always: If you do want either to offer some specific rebuttals to the specific critiques made by me or by anybody wrt those or any other subjects, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from going to the threads where they were made and rebutting them. And if you do want to provide some specific answers to the specific question asked by me or by anybody wrt those or any other subjects, honestly, Hugh: Same goes double, as far as I'm concerned. I mean, I can really only speak for myself. But personally I would neither make a critique nor ask a question if I didn't very, very much want the poster to whom I'd addressed my concerns to respond to them. So please. Go for it.
_________________________
** reworded slightly while reformatting quote to link in order not to waste bandwidth.
*** Nor am I accusing you of it now, either expressly or implicitly. I utterly disavow any suggestion to the contrary. So please, please don't repurpose my effort to make it clear that I don't think anything of the kind in order to falsely accuse me of having said that I think it. Please? Because I'd very much appreciate it if you didn't. As you know, I object to false and baseless accusations.
Thanks,
c2w
