Thursday, October 11, 2012

Ticks that Tock

Hide All / Expand All

Señor El Once : ticks that tock into a boom


Dear Mr. RuffAdam, you wrote:

Things are to the point in my 9/11 research that the source of the material I am looking at tends to tell me more about its merits than the material itself.

It isn't that I dispute this. I just urge caution and to recognize the distinction between the 9/11 realm and our daily lives.

The analogy I use is that of a movie critic. I was lucky enough in the 1980's to have media exposure to two such critics who sensibilities so aligned with mine, all it took was a "two thumbs up!" from them for me to not just put the movie on my "to watch" list, but to actively seek out where it was playing at funky art cinemas. Similarly, my professional and personal activities put me in contact with "nice" people whose tastes and styles so differed from mine, I could hardly ever take their (movie) advice at face value. But due to their consistency and sincerity, I could actually come to rely on their opinions in a negative critic sort of a way. That is, in the areas where their judgment was proven questionable, I learned to filter their words into different meaning for my subsequent actions, and also to run their words against those of others while establishing trend-lines.

The important distinction to be made here is that all of those who became to me positive or negative critics [on some subject] were sincere. There was no disingenous bent to lie about their opinions to achieve some nefarious goal [e.g., to get me to chunk down money for a ticket and "enjoy" some movie.]

With regards to 9/11, sometimes the opinions (or analysis) are not sincere, sometimes purposely.

And this is where our tactics for evaluating their works must change.

Specifically, ticks to them and their agenda might become exposed in an ah-ha moment, sometimes purposely, so that it tocks into a boom to decimates all of their works, the good as well as the purposely bad and a large guilt-by-association fallout area.

Good cannot and should not so easily be dispensed with. It must be preserved. Paraphrasing myself:

Sometimes disinformation is the best source for valid tidbits of information (nuggets of truth). Disinformation by design contains large swaths of truth, otherwise it will not be effective. We must mine, re-fine, and re-purpose those nuggets of truth even after the ticks have tocked to a boom regarding the overall merits of that source, lest we inadvertently play into the hands of (nuggets of) truth suppression.

The ticks of the source of the material should be used to gauge the number of bullshit-filters you apply to the material and how much second-source validation you apply to any extracted nuggets of truth.

Here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people’s mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. Nowadays I skip right over posts from them. I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.

This may or may not be leveled at me. For the sake of discussion, allow me to hijack it by making the ass-umption that I fall into that category. I hope to have (honest) instances where I operated dishonestly pointed out, and I will apologize profusely for my actions in those instances. [If my ass-umption was wrong, then allow me to humbly give my imitation of the Emily Latella (the late Gilde Radner of SNL): "Oooh... Nevermind.]

Skipping over my postings can be the right thing for many participants to consider... [particularly if certain individuals don't want "nookiedoo" getting squished into the waffle treads of their govt-issued black paratrooper boots.]

I would hope that I don't have that "certain personality type" with whom engaging in debate is "futile", because I try to cultivate an open-mind and objectivity in considering that which I haven't before. [In my younger days, I listened to both Punk and Classical. Nowadays it is World Music; if I don't understand the words, I'm more likely to enjoy listening.]

Evidence and science properly applied on 9/11 can get this duped useful idiot to change his opinions.

The ego is NOT our friend and our adversaries know that very well and use it to their advantage to keep us separated as individuals instead of unstoppable as a group.

Agreed. This is why it is best to circle our wagons around what we perceive to be nuggets of truth that we've separated from its original publishing source (e.g., ego) albeit while giving credit where credit is due (for the sake of their ego).


Señor El Once : Responding to Dr. Jones' Pixie Dust


Señor El Once : Dr. Jones' Tilting and Side-Stepping


Señor El Once : comprehending tritium


Señor El Once : Chromium and nickel and neutron bombs


Señor El Once : not trusting a single word


Señor El Once : neu nookiedoo: serve you well to just STFU


Señor El Once : lowering himself into my sewer


Señor El Once : demand for substantiation of belittling Professor Jones


Señor El Once : operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.


Señor El Once : the lucky horeshoe ~3 stories tall


Señor El Once : Dancing to Mr. Rogue's "No-Nookiedoo Burlesque"


Señor El Once : Lingering Radiation


Señor El Once : spin balls from here to eternity


I have no vested interest in this nuclear spat.

Mr. Rogue's 36 comments (37% of the 97 total) with 9,226 words (36% of total) tell another story regarding "vested interest," as does the fact that most of my 22 comments (22.6% of the 97 total) related to neu nookiedoo and were fueled by Mr. Rogue himself.

And If Señor Spinball wants to spin his balls from here to eternity on this topic – so be it.

Why, thank-you kindly, Mr. Rogue. Don't mind at all if I do.

And in all the hub-bub about neutron nuclear DEW, its signatures in the dust, and tritium radiation, I completely forgot to bring up Dr. Wood's textbook, "Where Did The Towers Go?" Such a great collection of nuclear after-effect images.

If you listen to the evidence carefully enough, it will speak to you and tell you exactly what happened. If you don’t know what happened, keep listening to the evidence until you do. The evidence always tells the truth. The key is not to allow yourself to be distracted away from seeing what the evidence is telling you.
~ crafty Dr. Judy Wood

Indeed, the evidence of 9/11 nuclear hijinx is on display in those pages, right on down to the anomalous vehicle damage along West Broadway and in the parking lot across the intersection, that Mr. Rogue's pyroclastic demolition mechanisms don't explain nearly as well as neu nookiedoo and its side-effects.

But there’s not a single nourishing analyte in his stew.

Oooo! Oooo! Oooo!

Nothing quite like a hole shot into the foot of Mr. Rogue's argument because of a stupid over-generalization: "... not a single nourishing analyte." Oh so easy to prove wrong and discredit Mr. Rogue with as little as "a single nourishing analyte."

Which nourishing nugget of truth from my posting should I pick to dispell the PR hynotic suggestion cast by Lord No-Nookie? Perhaps the horseshoe? Perhaps the arches? Perhaps the September 30, 2012 quote from Dr. Jones: "Something maintained those high temperatures [in the rubble hot-spots] (not just NT)"?

Oh, but why put such onus on me? Where are my manners?

Mr. Rogue brought it up. Mr. Rogue should defend it. Mr. Rogue should get cracking at proving each "wannabe-nourishing analytes" contained therein as not being such.

It is unclear whether Mr. Rogue is referring to a stew of 2,777 words from my last posting or to a stew of my 15,286 words (~60%) under this article alone. Let's assume the former for now. We can always double-back later.

Chop, chop, hop to it, Lord No-Nookie! And don't miss a single one, so tasty is that broth of damn naggit nuggets of truth.

Maybe you'll do better than your good, bad, and ugly chapter-by-chapter review on crafty Dr. Wood's textbook. Be a good Boy Scout and "Be Prepared," cuz you just know its coming.

Woo-hoo! Yet another opportunity to "slip [Dr. Wood's] shit in sideways!"

Even the meaty aroma of the broth is a synthetic fragrance made from neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones.

Speaking of "neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones", amorous readers should be wary of any double meanings to Mr. Rogue's earned title -- "the no-nookie Lord" -- beyond neu nookiedoo that gets smooshed into the waffle treads of his black paratrooper boots that he wears to bed with his skinny black tie, dark sun-glasses, and Scoobey-do under-roos in his DUMB site (deep underground military base) a.k.a. his mama's basement, particularly in the shadow of my meaty word count being 66% longer and of his comment count stream continuing to dribble on beyond what should be -- beyond what he promises to be -- his last words. Always the heart breaker, so married is he to his job.

Oh man, I better stop. This ad hominem is so much fun to write. I can see where the no-nookie Lord gets off "spinning his balls" in this vein. Most addictive. But not very convincing, I'm afraid.

No comments: