rigorousintuition.ca

So you admit that there is no connection between Larouche and this thread, except possibly in your imagination, and even then I'm supposed "to guess" what that might be.

Thanks, I guessed a long time ago.

No further questions.

Listen, man, I'm not even certain the source here is LaRouche - it's just a theory I'm trying out for fit. But such examinations seem pertinent in any thread in which you foist your typical anti-leftist polemic, and especially when you combine them with a dose of blue bolded zionist conspiracy. I don't really know where you got your schtick, frankly. However, if you can't offer a pretty good explanation yourself on just why you consider Engdahl a good source, see Greenwald as a "propagandist of the right", and find it, in tandem, important to point out that the zionists control the U.S. government, perhaps some self-examination is in order, if only in order that you know yourself just where you're coming from.

Listen, man, people born and raised in the US, as you claim to be, do not consistently anglicize their spelling, particularly when writing in haste, as you did no less than three frickin' times in your last post:

I realised that shortly after posting, an error for which I heartily apologise, given that I concur with the substance of your post entirely, and sympathise with you on account of the sheer lack of introspection it compelled in the person you directed it towards.

I've encountered many, many spelling errors in my day and that is simply not one that American students make. Ever. So don't think you're fooling me because even though I like you, you're not.

That's an interesting diversion to the conversation, but I have met and been drunk in person with roughly a dozen members of this board, and if I was hiding my trans-atlanticism from them they gave no signs of cracking my crafty disguise. I'm a third generation Californian, with or without the "zee's". Ask around, if you're really that interested in my pedigree.

Weak.

lupercal wrote:Listen, man, people born and raised in the US, as you claim to be, do not consistently anglicize their spelling, ..

Weak is putting it nicely, i think its worrying, you make no sense at all. Its those conspiritard namshubs i'm telling ya, they're the brain eating zombies you should be worrying about.

lupercal wrote:Listen, man, people born and raised in the US, as you claim to be, do not consistently anglicize their spelling, particularly when writing in haste, as you did no less than three frickin' times in your last post:

I realised that shortly after posting, an error for which I heartily apologise, given that I concur with the substance of your post entirely, and sympathise with you on account of the sheer lack of introspection it compelled in the person you directed it towards.

I would like to commend barracuda on his excellent spelling. We'll ignore the blue bolded Zionists.

I've encountered many, many spelling errors in my day and that is simply not one that American students make. Ever. So don't think you're fooling me because even though I like you, you're not.

May I ask the exact nature of the alleged fooling?

^ Yes Stephen, you can ask, but to speculate beyond what I've pointed out, which is readily verifiable and thus not in violation of RI posting guidelines, would be in violation, so we'll just have to leave it there.

lupercal wrote:^ Yes Stephen, you can ask, but to speculate beyond what I've pointed out, which is readily verifiable and thus not in violation of RI posting guidelines, would be in violation, so we'll just have to leave it there.

barracuda wrote:That's an interesting diversion to the conversation, but I have met and been drunk in person with roughly a dozen members of this board, and if I was hiding my trans-atlanticism from them they gave no signs of cracking my crafty disguise. I'm a third generation Californian, with or without the "zee's". Ask around, if you're really that interested in my pedigree.

Weak.

Pedigree? Huh?



...

hanshan wrote:
...

Stop it Hanshan, you're raising the tone of the thread!

wintler2 wrote:

hanshan wrote:
...

Stop it Hanshan, you're raising the tone of the thread!

...

lupercal wrote:^ Yes Stephen, you can ask, but to speculate beyond what I've pointed out, which is readily verifiable and thus not in violation of RI posting guidelines, would be in violation, so we'll just have to leave it there.

I'll have to disagree with you on this interpretation of the guidelines, lupercal, old chap. To the contrary, I should think speculation regarding the true reason that a mod on the board, while purporting to be from the U.S., would slip up and reveal himself to be actually from, well, from a place where they anglicize certain words, is in fact, an important and interesting topic and well within the bounds of open speculation. I mean, if the board moderator is an agent of British spelling or any other kind of agent, I'd say that information is fairly crucial to the basic trust you might be able to put into the board itself. So speculate away, chumley. Don't hide behind the guidelines with regards to an issue of such biting import.

But if you think such discursive tactics and folderol are going to dissuade me from asking for elaboration on your theories regarding the right wing propensities of Glenn Greenwald, you're mistaken. I fully intend to "hound" you about it to the extent of my own satisfaction, and to encourage others to follow suit, so you might as well quit lollygagging and come forth.

barracuda wrote:

lupercal wrote:^ Yes Stephen, you can ask, but to speculate beyond what I've pointed out, which is readily verifiable and thus not in violation of RI posting guidelines, would be in violation, so we'll just have to leave it there.

I'll have to disagree with you on this interpretation of the guidelines, lupercal, old chap. To the contrary, I should think speculation regarding the true reason that a mod on the board, while purporting to be from the U.S., would slip up and reveal himself to be actually from, well, from a place where they anglicize certain words, is in fact, an important and interesting topic and well within the bounds of open speculation. I mean, if the board moderator is an agent of British spelling or any other kind of agent, I'd say that information is fairly crucial to the basic trust you might be able to put into the board itself. So speculate away, chumley. Don't hide behind the guidelines with regards to an issue of such biting import.

I believe there is a specific ban on accusing people of being paid agents of disinformation.

But if you think such discursive tactics and folderol are going to dissuade me from asking for elaboration on your theories regarding the right wing propensities of Glenn Greenwald, you're mistaken. I fully intend to "hound" you about it to the extent of my own satisfaction, and to encourage others to follow suit, so you might as well quit lollygagging and come forth.

There's quite a lot of argument about this Greenwald, and those other people mentioned in this thread that I've never heard of. Are they really that important?

Stephen Morgan wrote:I believe there is a specific ban on accusing people of being paid agents of disinformation.

I think a certain leeway is in order when the question is of such a grand moment and keen vitality as this one surely is.

There's quite a lot of argument about this Greenwald, and those other people mentioned in this thread that I've never heard of. Are they really that important?

He's a rather important anti-war/anti-facist commentator on the left in this country, as you are well aware, so the notion that has been put forth by lupercal, that he is in fact a disinformation souce and propagandist for the right-wing is not something that ought to be taken lightly. I'm interested in what political bent pertains to such a perspective, and yes, I think it's important, particularly in light of lupercal's history of posting anti-leftist rhetoric or, as Jack put it upthread, conspiracy theories in which "all apparent popular manifestations against capitalism and empire are attacked as actually steered by the spooks". Lupercal has now spread his opinion on Greenwald across several threads, and I'm seeking clarity on that opinion, in order to either understand his position or stem the tide of that spread.

In essence, I'm asking that he elucidate his political philosophy as it underpins his stance on this issue. It seems liike a perfectly reasonable request to me.

barracuda wrote:

Stephen Morgan wrote:I believe there is a specific ban on accusing people of being paid agents of disinformation.

I think a certain leeway is in order when the question is of such a grand moment and keen vitality as this one surely is.

So, is there anything you'd like to tell us?

There's quite a lot of argument about this Greenwald, and those other people mentioned in this thread that I've never heard of. Are they really that important?

He's a rather important anti-war/anti-facist commentator on the left in this country, as you are well aware,

No I'm not, never heard of him. What about Creighton and company? Not Flying Saucer Review Creighton, I takes it.

so the notion that has been put forth by lupercal, that he is in fact a disinformation souce and propagandist for the right-wing is not something that ought to be taken lightly.

I believe I've posted similar statements about Noam Chomsky in the past, with gate-keeperish, anti-conspiracy ways.

I'm interested in what political bent pertains to such a perspective, and yes, I think it's important, particularly in light of lupercal's history of posting anti-leftist rhetoric or, as Jack put it upthread, conspiracy theories in which "all apparent popular manifestations against capitalism and empire are attacked as actually steered by the spooks".

Do you read the aangirfan site? I don't like it too much because of the anti-semitism, but he has some interesting ideas about things. However he clearly believes Tunisia and Libya and pretty much every other revolution and popular movement to be nothing more than CIA operations.

Lupercal has now spread his opinion on Greenwald across several threads, and I'm seeking clarity on that opinion, in order to either understand his position or stem the tide of that spread.

In essence, I'm asking that he elucidate his political philosophy as it underpins his stance on this issue. It seems liike a perfectly reasonable request to me.

Could be.