Sunday, November 11, 2012

Ventura Highway into the Weeds

Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections

The smell wafting up from the soles of Mr. HybridRogue1's black boots where "neu nookiedoo" oozes out of his waffle-stopper treads? Wouldn't be happening if he were not so intent on squishing "neu nookiedoo", short for "neutron nuclear directed energy weapons," to prevent rational discussion thereof.

Part 14: Ventura Highway into the Weeds

In these furthering adventures of Señor El Once on theme "Neu Nookiedoo", an unflattering invitation is sent several times from COTO crew. Once there, all four attempts [with links and HTML mark-up] to post something meaningful languished in the administrators queue, while the discussion meandered on.

Prior to leaving, a suspicion of sock-puppetry on T&S was uttered, that then led to all sorts of non-denial machinations that included three fronts of activity, demands to leave the COTO crew area, and censure. What was stuck in the queue initially was approved, but the fourth attempt in Mr. HybridRogue1's home "Scragged" article led to subsequent examples of "operating dishonestly" [heavy editing and purposeful misquoting] that could only be cured by further censure.

Neutron nuclear DEW suggests fracticide between the multiple ERW devices, such that several of them did not reach their full nuclear neutron-emission yield and were left fizzling in the pile. Why this would be so hard to accept, particularly with the many weaknesses of chemical explosives, does not leave many explanations.

Expand All Subsections / Hide All Subsections


x287 hybridrogue1 : let the catspaw torture the church mouse in a bridge circuit

2012-10-17

hybridrogue1
October 17, 2012 – 2:25 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_circuit
Various arrangements are known as the Wien bridge, Maxwell bridge and Heaviside bridge.
All are based on the same principle, which is to compare the output of two potentiometers sharing a common source.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What this has to do with the price of circuit boards from China is ANYBODY'S guess…
Perhaps it has something to be with decibels, barely oats, and heavy grog in a goblet made of pewter. Lead poisoning? Pewter aka Lead. The stalk of the living dead? Bela Lugosi's undead head chattering tone on your iPhone?

Let us pause and consider, let the catspaw torture the church mouse one more time, then we'll jump in the river holding hands…

"Judy Judy Judy"~Cary Grant

\\][//

hybridrogue1
October 17, 2012 – 2:30 pm

…or Goober impersonating Cary Grant.

\\][//


x288 Señor El Once : cyber-stalk someone across a bridge to a legacy

2012-10-17

Dear Mr. Rogue,

What deeper meanings might one sift out from your "catspaw torturing of the church mouse?" A threat? A warning?

Perhaps it has something to be with decibels, barely oats, and heavy grog in a goblet made of pewter. Lead poisoning? Pewter aka Lead. The stalk of the living dead? Bela Lugosi's undead head chattering tone on your iPhone? Let us pause and consider, let the catspaw torture the church mouse one more time, then we'll jump in the river holding hands...

The Bridge circuit information is fascinating reading, particularly to those who understand it in- and out-of-context for the obvious and not-so-obvious meanings.

Guess that rules you out. How can I be so sure? One only need look at your "ego links" to Coto2, where "the Roggie went missing" from the discussion.

If your words were worthy of preserving particularly with respect to databases, websites, and blogs owned and maintained by others -- some of whom are very antagonistic towards you --, you probably would have been clever enough to build yourself a bridge to your own legacy long ago.

Take it from me: having a bridge to a legacy helps in so many ways, even if not advertised and for personal amusement [and reference links :) and intended for family members not yet born.] Why, just the thought that your words will be preserved and re-purposed can be sufficient motivation to take the high-road (as much as possible) in the very words chosen while you are typing it. More "thinking twice before speaking once."

Know that it is one thing to cyber-stalk someone across a bridge, and yet another to publish personal information from the other side. The damage can be real [thanks to Google background checks in job searches]. And the motives for doing such unwarranted publishing are hardly ever pure. So be careful. Enough said.

Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing

Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.

I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can't hide behind the "I didn't say that" that anonymous blog commenters can.

So I don't think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ... Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don't care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn't be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.

In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn't in a position to know what he's writing about, it's not useful or conducive to public debate.
~ alaskanlibrarian


Against Outing (Most) Anonymous Bloggers

It is rash, uncharitable actions like the outing of Publius by Ed Whalen that prevents us all from enjoying the thoughts of countless folks who don't blog because anonymity is prone to leak. This isn't to say that anonymous blogging hasn't any downsides, or that outing is wrong in all circumstances. In this case, however, the cost Mr. Whalen imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself. I hope that the next time anyone decides to out an anonymous blogger, they've met a far higher threshold than is the case in this instance.
~ Conor Friedersdorf


On outing anonymous bloggers

People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity. If you do abuse that, I don't feel sorry for you if you're outed. On the other hand, I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
~ Rod Dreber


//


x290 hybridrogue1 : is the "real name" the real name?

2012-10-17

October 17, 2012 – 6:08 pm

Let me see now, there seems to be a volunteer here claiming to be "outed" in some way.

But the question under the catspaw is; is the "real name" the real name? Is that not obvious to all having their Dick Tracy decoder ring?

As far as my "legacy" at C2, which stands for COTO 2, officially under the title of COTO Report, is nothing that can be gleaned from the thread herein proffered, as I said, the Amazon treatment was given to me by the person running this bogus COTO site, which has a complex history. But I will recount some part of it here.

There were several 9/11 threads running on C2 at the time, not just the one about Rodriguez. There was also a discussion on C1 that this character, "ieaffiliates" showed up on. Also someone was tampering with the Rodriguez thread – showing some expertise with hacking. This person turns out to be a dentist, who had backed up ieaffiliates {also posting as Shooter} on the C1 thread, where I had ‘dashboard' control. So I was able to get the second parties email address used to post on my thread at C1. He was using his office email to post there. I tracked that email to his actual office as all the info was in the email address.
I deduced that this dentist was the one tampering with the C1 thread when he was able to delete his posts on C1. No one can delete the posts on wordpress other than the administrator in charge of the dashboard. Do you comprehend this situation so far?

Someone was rearranging the postings on the C2 Rodriguez. This was done to advance the cause of "shooter/ieaffiliates". It seemed reasonable to conclude that the party doing this was the dentist capable of hacking my thread on C1.

Back to C2, on one of the other 9/11 threads current at the time {one by Woodworth}, Shooter was making nasty remarks there as well. On that specific thread, I posted a message to Shooter that I knew who was messing with the threads, and that if it happened again I would post the party's name email and address, also mentioning I knew the physical address. I posted this as a warning, mentioning that this hacking was illegal and could be proven, as I had save the before and after C1 posts that were taken down from outside.

At this point there are considerations to be made to motivations. Rady the C2 administrator had just put in a Paypal type button, and was hoping to make some money off of her site.
She was especially sensitive to the "Rules" of WordPress, and was frankly acting a bit paranoid about everything at that point. She had been out of paying work for months and had used up her unemployment and was apparently desperate.

She emailed me that as far as she was concerned I had made a "threat" to Shooter. I was of course quite astonished at this allegation, as the history thus far seems to me to indicate that I was not making a "threat" but giving a warning as to what could reasonable construed as illegal activity on the part of this association of 9/11 debunkers revolving around ieaffiliates, I.E.Affiliates, turns out to be an insurance agency. I had their web site on record as well.

Anyway in this email from Rady she said I was banned for making personal threats. And by the time I logged back on to C2 I found she had deleted every single comment AND essay I had written there; the Memory Hole treatment.

So "the Roggie went missing" from the discussion because of the panic of the moderator.

Now, as far as characterizing what I wrote on C2 as a "threat" – I see this on the same terms as Homeland Security characterizing blogs such as these as "threats". As if we are advocating armed rebellion or violence. Neither are we doing that, nor was I ‘threatening' Shooter/Affiliates with physical harm, but was warning of possibly pursuing the legal aspects of hacking.
And continuing in that vein, if Señor is also tending towards a hysterical reaction to my post on electrical bridges, he is as fruitloops as Rady Ananda.

I do not believe that which he promotes as his actual name is his real name. I don't really care one way or the other, I just don't believe it as it is too coincidental as per the electrical system moniker.

What ever harms might be forthcoming from this are, again a matter of hysterics and paranoia. In the first place that "Name" is well known and mentioned in a thread here {36 Truthers} – so any claim that I have ‘outed" Señor is absurd.

But I DO wish to thank him for being so REACTIONARY in his response to my subtle strategy of tension, by in effect standing up and going; "Me me, Willy is talking about me here…see everybody? He's talking about ME…and I wanted to remain anonymous."
How fricking stupid is THAT?

Jump in the river alone Señor, from your ‘high bridge'.

\\][//


x291 Maxwell C. Bridges : pen-name's alias

2012-10-18

{email sent to Mr. Whitten}

Dear Mr. Whitten,

You play more dishonest games.

Let me see now, there seems to be a volunteer here claiming to be "outed" in some way. But the question under the catspaw is; is the "real name" the real name? Is that not obvious to all having their Dick Tracy decoder ring?

I never said you "outed" me. But you are certainly headed that direction and placing the dagger where some other "useful idiot" would pick it up and complete your bidding. Why else would you even bring it up?

Not so bright, are you? I've taken the liberty of highlighting the phrase-that-pays in the email below and making it the subject to this message.

Meanwhile, your posting says:

But I DO wish to thank him for being so REACTIONARY in his response to my subtle strategy of tension, by in effect standing up and going; "Me me, Willy is talking about me here…see everybody? He's talking about ME…and I wanted to remain anonymous."
How fricking stupid is THAT?

Your "subtle strategy of tension"? Admitting how you play games.

You say that you no longer drink. Based on the incoherence of several postings in your "subtle strategy of tension", I wouldn't rule out medical Mary Jane. Still, your wording hints towards threats that might be buried within.

With regards to your COTO experiences. Pegging the "dentist" for messing with the thread is a separate issue from your vigilante justice that would publish personal information about him. What if you were wrong and you acted on your threat? (What if only the dentist's IP address was piggybacked?) My point is that even if you were right, acting on your outing threat would have been wrong. Here are your very words...

On that specific thread, I posted a message to Shooter that I knew who was messing with the threads, and that if it happened again I would post the party's name email and address, also mentioning I knew the physical address. I posted this as a warning, mentioning that this hacking was illegal and could be proven, as I had save the before and after C1 posts that were taken down from outside.

Legal action for his hacking? You could have threatened that, but that's not what you did.

Be that as it may, nothing good will come of the strategy you're attempting with me. It is the strategy of someone who has already lost, eh? Going after the messenger instead of the message. You'll stoop to anything to win the discussion, aye?

Had you been more observant, you probably already would have known my real name. Meanwhile, you have enough information with this email alone to hand a buddy with even middling IT skills to squeeze it out of the ether in a couple of minutes. Anybody with a badge and need to know already does. Hell, you could even get it from Dr. Fetzer (in a dishonest moment), because I told it to him as vetting as I explained why I'd only do his radio show or Vancouver under my pen-name. Many others know, as well, including Mr. McKee.

I stand behind my words. Whichever comes first -- my death, my retirement, or a time of my choosing --, my pen-name and all its aliases will be associated with my real name. Should the association happen before then, the damage to me, my immediate family, and my extended family will be real. Ever had a potential employer for you (or a spouse) do a google background check on you? Ever seen what ScrewLooseChange (SLC) does to its opponents? You ought to see what they do to Brian Good there (where he acts the 9/11 Truther). The same govt agent who gives Mr. Good the "goat f**ker sexual harassment" treatment not only outed me on Alternet, but thought I had followed him to SLC and spent half a year outing me on SLC in the vilest ways. I didn't find out until almost a year later when I was ego surfing on my name. I was prepared (insurance $) to take him to court for criminal libel, but it would have been costly and would have exasperated the situation and possibly made it worse on SLC and elsewhere. Having the fortitude to take it far enough to get a judgment does not always translate into me getting paid the judgment, let alone my legal costs. My lawyer counseled me to drop it.

You want to know my real name? Maybe I'll trust you enough one of these days to outright tell you, although I know I won't have to, because my IT firewall in this regard is very thin. To pierce the firewall and learn (or verify) things about me purposely takes some cyber-stalking effort. This is one thing, and is designed to tweak the conscience. It is quite another to publish those findings, because that takes a bolder, unethical, immoral step that reflects having no conscience. And to what end? It doesn't dispute my 9/11 theories. It doesn't discredit someone who calls himself a bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot.

You think about it, Mr. Whitten.

// MCB



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 9:32 AM
Subject: Re: Fetzer
To: Willy Whitten


Dear Mr. Whitten,

Attached are two HTML snippet files that are two postings from "Señor El Once" that address Dr. Fetzer's spin. You may use one or both. Please credit my pen-name's alias: "Señor El Once" as well as the source location. At the top of each is a link to the source location on T&S.


x293 Maxwell C. Bridges : In getting to know me: the 1st and 2nd emails

2012-10-18

{email to Mr. Whitten}
Here's the real email I was looking for with the relevant passage highlighted. Wouldn't you know it'd be the 2nd email I sent to you?

Not that I care, it is rather curious with 20/20 hindsight that you had me direct Dr. Wood's book publisher to send the book to an address in {snip} even though many other postings seem to reference you living in "Flada". Probably a business address for your art, but explains why the book took so long getting to you (one week instead of 3 days).



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Maxwell C. Bridges
Date: Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: Dr. Judy Wood's Book
To: Willy Whitten


Dear Mr. Whitten,

The order for Dr. Wood's book has been submitted. It should be there in 1 to 3 days, so if you don't get it by next Tuesday, please let me know so I can follow up.

It is costing me $45.25 to get you onto the same physical page. Further proof of my gullibility, I guess, because I don't champion Dr. Wood's work 100%. But this is the most expedient method I know of to get to a rational discussion on advanced concepts of 9/11 and to mine those damn nuggets of truth.

If the sculptures that come up on google under your name are any indication, I have no doubts about your talents as an artist. I never really questioned it anyway.

It'd be a pleasure knowing you better as well; might get me to stop calling you an agent. Acceptance of the gift is one step in that direction. Agreement with what is in Dr. Wood's book isn't a condition; objective review is. (Agents have orders and mandates and lines they can't cross. Accepting Dr. Wood's book and reviewing it are evidently two such lines, I've discovered.)

In getting to know me, Maxwell C. Bridges is my pen-name and Señor El Once one of his alias. Authorities really only care about aliases when commerce (and hence taxes) are involved. Fat chance of either of those two getting a bank account or credit card in today's knee-jerk world. On line, it is only becomes unethical when used in tandem in the same discussion.

On the surface it seems rather dubious and mysterious all these identities. Not my choice and done out of necessity. The pen-name is a prudent move that even Ben Franklin, other founding-fathers, and Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) found useful, as do all super heroes and the actors who portray them. Subsequent aliases resulted from agent activity targeted against the real me when my pen-name's "firewall" was too weak to withstand immoral and unethical agents. I just don't need google associating immoral agent actions with the real me. Google might become a bitch in a job search. I've got immediate and extended family to think of.

Duty calls. Later.

Sincerely,
Maxwell C. Bridges


On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Willy Whitten wrote:

My address is:  {... snip ...}

I accept your conditions with the caveat that I am not holding off posting until I receive the book. When I do receive the book, I will attend to it right away as you ask.

I am indeed curious as to if there is anything in there, or the accumulation of what is within that could possibly sway me...and I could be surprised.
But if my alternate views compete successfully with this Wood thesis, I will be able to offer more precise reasons as to why.
Thank you for your offer, and give me the price eventually due if you will.
~Willy \\][//
PS, {... snip ...}
I am willing to get to know you Maxwell if you so wish. I'd like to know more about you, besides you are a master at the tango.
*****

On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Maxwell C. Bridges wrote:

Dear Señor Rogue Autodidact Polymath,

You wrote:

I'll send my email address to Mr. McKee again, and he can pass it on to you, you can email me, and I will gladly accept your offer of the book. I have hesitated to do so, because I don't want to feel beholding to you, and then argue against you…it seems underhanded.

Oh, you'll feel beholding, all right. The expired offer that I'll extend until midnight tonight comes with conditions.

And you can bet that if you accept it and default on the conditions, I'll use it as well-spent cheap excuse to (figuratively) bloody your nose again and again on the theme of Dr. Wood. And even if you do not accept it with the conditions, I have every intention of making hay (and bloody noses) out of that situation as well. Win-win for me in getting at nuggets of truth.

Conditions:
- You will give Dr. Wood's textbook an objective and thorough [cover-to-cover] reading.
- You will share your good, bad, and ugly reviews. If the "good" is missing, I clobber you with your own copy.
- If pressed in debate (e.g., on Truth & Shadows), the good, bad, and ugly reviews will extend down to the chapter level. Again, if the good is missing, I clobber you.
- If the book is found worthy, you are to pay-it-forward (or loan/give your copy) to someone else influential in the 9/11 discussion (or leadership).
- If the book is found totally unworthy at the end of your reading, then you should probably give it to someone who will appreciate it.


Assuming you agree to the conditions, you'll have two options going forward.

Option 1: Go to Dr. Wood's website where she's selling the book and order it for yourself. A PDF of receipt emails [could even mask out personal details] of confirmation of order and shipment, and maybe a later test from me like "what's the first sentence on such-and-such a page" will serve as verification to me that you have the book. At that point in time, I will Pay-Pal your email account with the money you paid.

Benefits: I don't need to know who you are or where you live or any personal details about you.

Option 2: You send me shipping instructions (name, address, etc.). I go to Dr. Wood's website, order it, pay for it, and have them ship it to the address you specified. You notify me promptly once you've received it. (Otherwise, I'll have to track it down.)

Benefits: You don't have to do anything to confirm it was paid for EXCEPT confirm receipt thereof.


Mr. McKee received his copy through me. He will vouch for the sincerity of my offer and that I do put my wallet where my mouth is. And you have fair warning with the conditions and my actions here-to-date how I plan on making use of this investment, particularly if I don't get what I most desire: the good, bad, and ugly reviews (down to the chapter level.)

I'll need confirmation that you agree to the conditions as well as your choice in options and any associated information by midnight.

Nuggets of truth are what I am after. I may be "gullible and naive", but so what?

Sincerely,

Maxwell C. Bridges


x297 hybridrogue1 : I will address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor

2012-10-19

hybridrogue1
October 19, 2012 – 1:46 pm

Let me make my position absolutely clear. I have stated that I will no longer deal with Señor by back channel emails. This is for the reason of open disclosure of any and everything said to and about each other. I will also note that is my intention to speak in the third person, rather than ‘debate' Señor directly as it is my firm opinion that Señor is a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation. I also think that direct one on one with Señor is more likely to lead to long flame wars between us.

I have objected before and will continue to object to Señor's habit of posting long essay length commentary, rather than making clear single focused points that can be dealt with without a continuing cutting off the fat to get to the core of the argument.

Señor has "hoped" in the last correspondence that I will not only ‘filter' any of his future emails, but that I would not confront him on this forum either. This ‘hope' is in vain. As I have stated herein, I will do my best not to confront him directly – but I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.

In General:
I have become distressed that the New Wave 9/11 movement has cast the original movement in an equal light as the Official Story – framing their arguments as if the works of the original activists fighting for truth about 9/11 is in itself the ‘Official Story'. I have noticed the similarity, and at times the precise arguments originally made by the Mainstream to by now regurgitated by this New Wave 9/11.

Just recently I listened to a debate on web/radio between Richard Gage and Dave Thomas. I was struck by the similarity of Thomas' argumentation and much of what I read and hear from the New Wave 9/11 personalities.

During the debate with Gage, the host asked Thomas if the magazine Skeptical Inquirer is a ‘peer reviewed' journal, like the Bentham journal* Thomas lied when he claimed that yes it is. The Skeptical Inquirer is clearly NOT a ‘peer reviewed journal'.

Thomas also brought up the controversy of editors quitting Bentham over the Harrit peer reviewed paper at Bentham, which was an obviously politically inspired ruse to dispoil the science, plus the fact that another Bentham journal let a hoax slip by is a red-herring. It is simply a smear, and is in fact a technique to avoid discussion of the science. {This same techniques on this very issue is used by Fetzer and others to debunk the thermite paper of Harrit and Jones}

Thomas also cites the test filmed at ‘Tech', but fails to acknowledge the experiments of Jon Cole which proves conclusively that simple thermite can cut such steel beams in mere seconds.

I think it is therefore in the interest of all who are seeking the truth of 9/11 to be very careful when assessing the arguments made against the controlled demolition proposition, which are now being steered to mimic the very arguments initially made by JREF and other so-called "skeptics'.

Again, it is my firm conviction that the New Wave assertions to do with, ‘No-Planes' ‘Video Fakery' ‘Holograms' ‘Nukes' ‘Dew' and the hybrid ‘NookieDew' are very likely a COINTELPRO type counter intelligence operation being played against the movement and truth itself.

\\][//

hybridrogue1
October 19, 2012 – 2:46 pm

This should attend my commentary above:

http://www.wmnf.org/news_stories/911-debate-do-we-know-the-truth

– Dave Thomas v Richard Gage on WTC 9/11

\\][//


x298 Señor El Once : "disingenuous argumentation"? That's in Mr. Rogue's playbook, not mine.

2012-10-19

When Mr. Rogue isn't successful at defeating the message, he attacks the messenger. Mr. Rogue writes:

It is my firm opinion that Señor is a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation.


"Oooo-oh yes, I'm the great pretender..."
[Colored girls sing] "woo-woo"


Ah, but the "disingenuous argumentation"? That's in Mr. Rogue's playbook, not mine. Mr. Rogue purposely tries to assign his debate techniques to me. Here's previous example of such a Rogue play that I call "operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.".

If Mr. Rogue can find instances where I have used "disingenuous argumentation" (and that themselves don't unravel to be Mr. Rogue's "disingenuous argumentation" as happens regularly), he should point them out with links, so that I can apologize and correct the matter. I do not relish being the sole duped useful idiot on these matters, and want to be set straight with properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence.

I also think that direct one on one with Señor is more likely to lead to long flame wars between us.


No, unlikely. Mr. Rogue has attempted flame wars both on-list and off-list many times. The only real flames with any regularity came from Mr. Rogue's keyboard.

[Disclaimer: I did rather recently attempt some Mr. Rogue-style "ad hominem" and acknowledge how fun & addictive it is. But that's not my style; it's all Mr. Rogue's. Of course, I have often called Mr. Rogue an agent, but I do so while documenting why it was MHO to the best of my ability with suppositional & guesswork substantiation based on Mr. Rogue's own actions and inactions. (To list an example of the latter will result in Mr. Rogue's nose figurately getting bloodied by his copy of Dr. Wood's textbook that -- like an agent -- he avoids objectively reviewing for nuggets of truth. His analysis of Mr. Prager's dust work runs parallel to Dr. Wood.)]

I have objected before and will continue to object to Señor's habit of posting long essay length commentary, rather than making clear single focused points that can be dealt with without a continuing cutting off the fat to get to the core of the argument.


Such a nonsense philosophy. My "long essay length commentary" are so much easier to ignore, and don't flood the forum. And they are also so much easier to respond to: point-by-point. The key is to copy it off-line so that a discussion participant has better control of the authoring process before pasting it back in. This advice applies whether all points are being addressed, or only a few salient ones while attempting "to trim the fat."

What Mr. Rogue doesn't mention is his alternative to my "long essay length commentary": lots of tiny postings, sometimes several in a row, designed to distract, detour, and fork, but not to make a comprehensive argument. They are too often shot from the hip in a shot-gun pattern just to see what sticks.

Mr. Rogue is welcome to object all he wants, because he'll stoop to anything to avoid drafting a point-by-point as well as "trimmed fat" response.

Señor has "hoped" in the last correspondence that I will not only ‘filter' any of his future emails, but that I would not confront him on this forum either. This ‘hope' is in vain.


Mr. Rogue has his Q-group assignment, and evidently I am it and have been it since January 2012. Despite numerous promises to not engage me -- an admitted "bat-shit crazy duped useful idiot" --, Mr. Rogue has always felt duty-bound to ignore his personal promises and come right back at me with his unobjective and dubious arguments. How "bat-shit crazy" is that, versus how much is agenda-driven?

As I have stated herein, I will do my best not to confront him directly – but I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.


Certainly... If Mr. Rogue can find it, and if his work doesn't get held up as a great example of being exactly that which he would confront. For example, just recently Mr. Rogue accused me of belittling Professor Jones (slander). I demanded substantiation of such, if for no other reason so I could apologize. Guess what? Mr. Rogue's responses had no exact quotations (nor any URLs) from me that would prove such a charge. The slander/libel charge doesn't apply to me, but does come closer to fitting Mr. Rogue's shoe.

I would be grateful for Mr. Rogue (or anyone) pointing out my "errors, misconceptions, ... and any other issues." Repeatedly in these forums, most of the above were on Mr. Rogue's side of the debate fence. So what we're seeing here is either another example of Mr. Rogue's failing short-term memory or a crafty PR hypnotic psy-op to re-frame our 10-month history on Truth & Shadows. Even funnier:

Thank you, Mr. Rogue, for making it crystal clear what your duty in life is: "I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot." I've known that all along. Who gave you this assignment?

No need to wrap this duped useful idiot in with your "New Wave 9/11 movement". Sure, I might "regurgitate" a thing or two when brought to my attention, but because my focus has always been on nuggets of truth, very quickly the dross gets cooked off and the fake nuggets expelled.

Speaking of fake nuggets, here's one from Mr. Rogue himself:

The experiments of Jon Cole ... proves conclusively that simple thermite can cut such steel beams in mere seconds.


Not that the above isn't true; it isn't applicable to the observed destruction of the WTC. The towers came down in mere seconds total time, which makes simple thermite not a plausible option for explaining what was observed. So when things are added to thermite to really crank down the activation time into the needed in mere milli or micro seconds to achieve the total collapse time, what you are left with is a destructive mechanism that cannot account for the lengthy duration of under-rubble hot-spots without obscenely large quantities that are allegedly unspent from the pulverization. Can't have it both ways with such chemcial means.

I don't know about other readers, but I consider this to be "errors and misconceptions" from Mr. Rogue that he keeps promoting... while at the same time getting stuck in the waffle treads of his black paratrooper boots lots of "neu nookiedoo" for which the evidence is becoming clearer and clearer.

I think it is therefore in the interest of all who are seeking the truth of 9/11 to be very careful when assessing the arguments made against the controlled demolition proposition, which are now being steered to mimic the very arguments initially made by JREF and other so-called "skeptics'.


Indeed. And also "be very careful when assessing the arguments made for the controlled demolition proposition" that suggest conventional (and exotic) chemical mechanisms that can answer neither to the physics nor to the wealth of anomalous evidence (the fire damaged vehicles).

Again, it is my firm conviction that the New Wave assertions to do with, ‘No-Planes' ‘Video Fakery' ‘Holograms' ‘Nukes' ‘Dew' and the hybrid ‘NookieDew' are very likely a COINTELPRO type counter intelligence operation being played against the movement and truth itself.


Whew! What a relief!

Mr. Rogue didn't mention "neu nookiedoo", which is a bastardization of his coinage meant to belittle neutron nuclear DEW (directed energy weapons), which might actually go by ERW (enhanced radiation weapons). Thus, "neu nookiedoo" is still on the table, and I have no problems not only agreeing with Mr. Rogue's paragraph above but also pointing out from Mr. Rogue's frame his own "very likely COINTELPRO type counter intelligence operation".

Before closing, allow me to express my thanks to Mr. Rogue for providing not only another opportunity for me to respond with "neu nookiedoo" "shit slipped in sideways," but also insight into his marching orders: "I certainly WILL address any and all ... issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot." Were they not so, he could easily just STFU, STOP, move on to other participants, and let my have the final bat-shit crazy word on my hobby-horse topic.

Final word (so far), readers should be "concerned" about the phrasing from Mr. Rogue "concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot," particularly when a couple of Mr. Rogue's postings over the last couple of days have attempted to turn discussion on me -- the person with valid reasons for hiding behind online aliases -- and not on my neu nookiedoo message or any alleged "errors, misconceptions, and any other issues" contained therein.

// pretending to be shocked about Mr. Rogue COINTELPRO


x299 hybridrogue1 : figment of Señor's own fevered imagination

2012-10-19

The assertion that I have not defeated the message and therefore "attack the messenger", is merely a figment of Señor's own fevered imagination.

It is my position that neither Señor, nor the parties he cites have come even close, let alone proven the nuclear hypothesis. As far as Judy Judy Judy, I see her as totally out of the running as far as responsible scientific inquiry is concerned…chicken McNuggets aside.

It is true, I am not making an argument against all of these New Wave assertions at the present moment. I am not providing URL flashbacks to what is so readily available to anyone on the forum to locate within the threads of this forum. This is so because I sincerely believe that no one else here really gives a shit about the squabbles so far.

Nevertheless, as we go forward we shall see. There is the proper time and place for all of this.

One last note, the assertions that I have "orders" other than my own lights is the sort of subtle ad hominem of a sneaky slippery creature. When I make a flame it is easily recognized as direct and purposeful.


x300 Señor El Once : "Judy, Judy, Judy" and "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff" and "good, bad, and ugly."

2012-10-20

In composing this response to Mr. Rogue, I first copied his text from the forum into my editor. I put <blockquote> and </blockquote> bookends around each paragraph (or sentence) that I was going to address. And then I composed my response to each one. Mr. Rogue should take a lesson from this, because this is how a worthy participant to this discussion should handle my book-length postings.

The assertion that I have not defeated the message and therefore "attack the messenger", is merely a figment of Señor's own fevered imagination.

My "own fevered imagination" sees a figment on October 4, 2012 – 4:46 pm, which has two notable features. (1) It points out that Mr. Rogue drops PR hypnotic suggestions regarding the invalidity of "neu nookiedoo" concepts and that Mr. Rogue doesn't substantiate this -- nor has he ever. (2) That would have been my last posting on this thread, until Mr. Rogue used his "strategy of tension" on October 17, 2012 – 2:25 pm to drag me back into the discussion in a veiled and underhanded manner whose purpose was to go after me -- a proven real person albeit a "duped useful idiot" -- as opposed to the bat-shit crazy neu nookiedoo that I champion.

It is my position that neither Señor, nor the parties he cites have come even close, let alone proven the nuclear hypothesis. As far as Judy Judy Judy, I see her as totally out of the running as far as responsible scientific inquiry is concerned…chicken McNuggets aside.

If there be any truth to Mr. Rogue's assertion, it will be based on the undisputed facts that: (1) Mr. Rogue has not read cover-to-cover "Judy, Judy, Judy" to offer his chapter-by-chapter good, bad, and ugly review, nor can he cough up any source within the 9/11 Truth Movement that has done so either; (2) Ditto for the review of Jeff Prager's Dust Analysis; (3) Mr. Rogue is crippled in his reviews by not being to write from his own understanding, but is overly reliant on others who themselves have minor issues and skew in their works.

It is true, I am not making an argument against all of these New Wave assertions at the present moment.

So why has Mr. Rogue repeatedly in this thread alone dropped his PR hypnotic statements on the matter?

I am not providing URL flashbacks to what is so readily available to anyone on the forum to locate within the threads of this forum.

Such a cop-out and a devious trick. Mr. Rogue is notorious for saying "I defeated you on subject X, so no sense repeating it," when in reality he did not and any URL links he would provide (assuming he had the smarts to figure out how to get them since Mr. McKee's redesign) would not substantiate his assertion. And my links end up putting the icing on the falsity of his assertions.

This is so because I sincerely believe that no one else here really gives a shit about the squabbles so far.

Mr. Rogue acts like he doesn't give a shit either, yet his postings here and the PR hypnotic suggestions he drops tell another story.

Nevertheless, as we go forward we shall see. There is the proper time and place for all of this.

Mr. Rogue knows what he must do: "Judy, Judy, Judy" and "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff" and "good, bad, and ugly." Anything that doesn't have the fortitude to acknowledge the "good" nuggets of truth -- however few and far between [or thick & plentiful] they might be -- will discredit Mr. Rogue.

One last note, the assertions that I have "orders" other than my own lights is the sort of subtle ad hominem of a sneaky slippery creature. When I make a flame it is easily recognized as direct and purposeful.

Whether "direct and purposeful" such as his "Goober impersonating Cary Grant", Mr. Rogue shouldn't be flaming at all, period. Not very becoming.

"Subtle ad hominem of a sneaky slippery creature?" Evidently, Mr. Rogue references me as the "sneaky slippery creature" in his "direct and purposeful" flaming manner, which I think is mostly because of how the high road protects.

But if I have been too "subtle", I will amend that. However, when someone demonstrates talents and traits of a farmer, a mechanic, a plumber, an artist, an engineer, etc., it is not "ad hominem" to call them such. Of course, some professions require more demonstrations and more proof before one can be sure, such as it is with being a "Sunstein Agent" (or Q-Groupie, etc.) to infiltrate online forums.

I know many participants like Mr. Rogue and find many of his contributions to T&S agreeable. Even I will admit to this. Alas, it fits into the meme of "establishing his legend as a 9/11 Truther", so that he'll get a get a pass from others when he must act (ruthlessly) on his true agenda:

As I have stated herein, I will do my best not to confront him directly – but I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot.

If I am the "duped useful idiot", why so much attention? Worse, it is attention that has been rather constant with a high frequency since Mr. Rogue's entrance into this forum in January 2012. I'm not complaining too much, because they were opportunities for me to "feed the sheep" and help bore into (nuggets of) truth that I would have been unable to do otherwise.

I've got other things to do this weekend (like clean the gutters), so I will refrain from listing every detail and suspicion I have that makes Mr. Rogue an agent in my mind. But I will drop two seeds regarding Mr. Rogue's online legacy for others to explore. These are my fresh words:

Mr. Rogue claims to have been a very vocal person on the 9/11 conspiracy meme since its early days, now eleven years passed. When queried where one could find his writings, he didn't offer many links and waved his hand in the air "COTO" [which then necessitated him spelling it out "Coalition of the Obvious" so it could be googled along with names and aliases.] When one extrapolates Mr. Rogue's frequency and fervor in postings on T&S backwards to COTO, COTO2, his blog, what can be googled... his online legacy becomes very thin very quickly. He bragged about writing great things that, as luck would have it, got zapped from databases. [It does happen, even to me.] One would think that when he saw other posters get deleted from his favorite online haunts, he would have been clever enough to preserve his worthy words himself. He wasn't. When he was bumped from various places, one would think he would have used his blog (established 2009) to compensate. He didn't. All writers have egos; they want their words to be read, just like visual artists want their works to be appreciated. Mr. Rogue certainly has an ego, but such a thin portfolio of what would be required to back up his words of having written lots of words.



The above is just a couple of tiny seeds. His thin legacy by itself means nothing, except when couple with his big bragging mouth that offered countradictory words regarding his online activism.

The real kicker for me has always been his reaction and handling of "Judy, Judy, Judy" (and now also "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff"). How many months did he try to pass off his book review of Dr. Wood WITHOUT having her book? Then after I called his bluff and got the book into his hands for the purposes of an objective review (good, bad, and ugly), he hasn't changed his tune in the least. In fact, he hasn't acknowledged one good thing from reading or skimming her book that he didn't know before. And to keep his opinions in the rut they were in, he coughs up alternatives that he doggedly won't admit have deficiencies in adding up.

//


x307 Señor El Once : God's Protection

2012-10-22

{Several attempts. Not sure they made it, due to either HTML formatting or length, but no error messages were offered to give me insight.}

{Most likely it is all of the HTML formatting that prevented these from being posted. Just as well. God is protecting me in this regard, because I don't really need the COTO time-suck.}


{2012-11-04 Update: Mr. Rogue commented on this. "Go esteem yourself a bright lobster red you crazy son of a bitch. \\][//" This signifies that it was both intercepted and censured. Evidently, three of those attempts are now all live. The people who commented after these "now-live" postings theoretically did not know what I was writing; their comments reflect that and give a nice skew to my posting in context now. Pretty El-Oh-El funny. God's Law of Protection at work again. Note also that a fourth version of this was published to Scragged thread that serves as Mr. Rogue's home. What is noteworthy is that the message supposedly from me that remains has been heavily edited down to 4 lines, the last two of which I did not write: "P.S. I plan on being a regular here. // I’m a covert agent" Pretty El-Oh-El funny.}

October 22, 2012
October 22, 2012
2012-10-22

To the esteemed participants of COTO,

It appears my PR advance man (aka Mr. Rogue) has been busy framing me and conditioning you all what to expect. The following are his words with my comments in {curly braces} unless noted otherwise.

- "a tacky tar-baby that sticks to you once you engage it." (September 29, 2012)
{One perspective. But given that Mr. Rogue's posting frequency on Truth & Shadows exceeds mine and everyone else by a wide margin, given that Mr. Rogue has broken several promises to ignore me, and given that Mr. Rogue drops out-of-the-blue PR hypnotic suggestions to disparage my hobby-horse -- "neu nookiedoo" --, my perspective is different with regards to who has the sticky tar.}

- "on me like a gnat around a banana, from the time I began posting on that forum."
{Only when Mr. Rogue tries to mount my hobby-horses or when his math & physics are just plain wrong.}

- "Señor is a beancounter who keeps charts and notes, as organized as any bon fide agent might do, or have a staff to do. Any word uttered on that thread is miraculously recalled – at his fingertips in a moment."
{Not quite true. In fact, "beancounter" is the wrong expression. "Diligent packrat" is more accurate. When I experienced selective purging of my comments from other people's forums early on, I learned to collect, preserve, and re-purpose them myself; I stand behind them [up to the point where something made me change my mind.] I don't extend much effort in preserving the words of my opponents, except those words that I want to address so that (1) I can quote accurately, and (2) I can provide more context when I know I'll be re-purposing their words and my replies out-of-context eventually. As part of being a "diligent packrat", I note within my source file when and where I posted something. Combining these diligent habits with a good memory enables me with not much extra effort to serve up Mr. Rogue's foot for him to eat. It isn't that difficult to count a specific participant's contribution to a thread and calculate their percentage contribution to the whole. Mr. Rogue is upset because this exposes his agenda.}

- "Señor El Once aka The Duped Useful Idiot aka Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter…etc etc is a LIAR." October 10, 2012
{I would hope not. Mr. Rogue is notorious for making unsubstantiated statements, and for inappropriate framing.}

- "There's not a single nourishing analyte in his stew. Even the meaty aroma of the broth is a synthetic fragrance made from neurotoxic rhetorical pheromones." October 10, 2012
{This was addressed 2012-10-11.}

- "It could be he is the covert agent." October 21, 2012
{He also called me "a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation" (2012-10-19). The "disingenuous argumentation"? That's in Mr. Rogue's playbook, not mine. Mr. Rogue purposely tries to assign his debate techniques to me. Here's a previous example of such a Rogue play that I call "operating dishonestly: the [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.".}

{Be that as it may, let's "pretend that I'm a covert agent" in these COTO forums. I'll be returning to this theme later.}

- "He fancies himself as some sort of top notch scientific thinker."
{Not true. What is true is that I have enough of a scientific background to ask pertinent questions and see areas where individuals or institutions are pulling a fast one in their 9/11 reports. And I'm persistent. Mr. Rogue's background as a "genius artist" had him elect not to take "boojie woojie high school science & math" -- Mr. Rogue's phrase --, so I guess I come across as "top notch" by comparison.}

- "He's good at math, but actually he is NOT all that clever with the conceptual side of science, and is apt to apply himself too vigorously to false assumptions."
{One perspective. Another perspective is that Mr. Rogue clings "too vigorously to false assumptions" fed to him by PhD's and the PR generated within the 9/11 Truth Movement, like the ability of chemical conventional & exotic explosives to achieve the decimation of the WTC complex in the manner observed.}

- "He claims to be an "industrial strength conspiracy theorist"…and perhaps he is; Military-Industrial Strength"
{The label "industrial-strength conspiracy theorist" was given by a very early opponent. Seemed appropriate. The God-given advice then was to "embrace it." Pre-pending the adjective "military" to it? As long as we're "pretending that I'm an agent..."}

- "And just those two foundational statements [claims to be an "industrial strength conspiracy theorist"; says his mission is to "feed my sheep"] by Mr Maxwell Bridges aka Señor El Once would indicate to me he is actually acting on behalf of the state."
{One perspective. Another perspective is that I am a bible-thumping holy-roller bat-shit crazy religious zealot. This should be a clue as to my persistence and fortitude with regards to nuggets of Truth, what with "Truth being a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue."}

- "Whatever the answer is, agent or crackpot, one thing is certain, he's a real fuckin' asshole."
{Why, thank you, Mr. Rogue, for such a glowing recommendation.}

- "It is becoming more and more my view that he is also a "military-industrial strength ‘conspiracy theorist' ". It is in that he has been so intent on framing me as an agent that has my alarms going off as to this." (October 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm)
{It would be nice to frame you as something else, but the trend line for your data points always seems to circle around agent. You know how to change this. "Judy, Judy, Judy" and "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff" and "good, bad, ugly." (2012-10-20)}

- "Señor is a chameleon, either the more expert and subtle agent, or simply the ‘duped and useful idiot' he claims to be."
{The latter. Were I the former, not only would my output be more prolific, but also I would exhibit many hard-line stances in defense of "the agenda", lines drawn in the sand that I simply cannot cross, things that I cannot consider, and letting myself become convinced... errr, "duped"... by something else with properly applied science and math to all of the evidence. Hence my objectivity and open-mindedness to "nuggets of truth" in "Judy, Judy, Judy" and "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff". Nope, as an agent, I wouldn't be allowed to go there, nor would I be allowed to preserve my words, lest they "not add up" and start to get used against me. And this seems to be Mr. Rogue's predictament when he accepted the conditions I placed on his free copy of Dr. Judy Wood's textbook.

{The rest of the comments are mine without curly braces unless otherwise noted.}

On to other business. Mr. Rogue's repetitive posting on nano-curie of tritium? Addressed 2012-10-04.

Mr. Rogue also quoted me wrong twice in this thread. The first one isn't even my words; they come from the alaskanlibrarian.

Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.
~ alaskanlibrarian from Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing


The second one was intended to show how I throw ad hominem, but what it lacks is the wonderful introduction from Mr. Rogue that provides context:

And when the topic is finally to be addressed legitimately on a story meant for it, he will find he has shot his wad by premature ejaculation before the real party begins. Once again he has proven himself indeed a duped, but useless idiot.

My response:

Worse than that. The "duped, but useless idiot" has also given out his game plan by mentioning the Dr. Wood textbook that he intends on mining for nuggets of truth towards neu nookiedoo conclusions, sweatheart, a wad that is dribbling off of Mr. Rogue's chin onto his blouse. Like another famous skin flute player, preserving the DNA from the clothing article might lead to impeachment or treason trials... the neu nookiedoo fallout... Shock-and-awe, baby.


I wrote the following:

Mr. Rogue claims to have been a very vocal person on the 9/11 conspiracy meme since its early days, now eleven years passed. When queried where one could find his writings, he didn't offer many links and waved his hand in the air "COTO" [which then necessitated him spelling it out "Coalition of the Obvious" so it could be googled along with names and aliases.] When one extrapolates Mr. Rogue's frequency and fervor in postings on T&S backwards to COTO, COTO2, his blog, what can be googled… his online legacy becomes very thin very quickly. He bragged about writing great things that, as luck would have it, got zapped from databases. [It does happen, even to me.] One would think that when he saw other posters get deleted from his favorite online haunts, he would have been clever enough to preserve his worthy words himself. He wasn't. When he was bumped from various places, one would think he would have used his blog (established 2009) to compensate. He didn't. All writers have egos; they want their words to be read, just like visual artists want their works to be appreciated. Mr. Rogue certainly has an ego, but such a thin portfolio of what would be required to back up his words of having written lots of words.


It is good and well that Mr. Rogue has "supporters" here like veritable1 who comes to his defense with such glowing reviews:

The Rogue was brilliant in the commentaries he made in reference to what this jerk off is portending to discredit. Why the host of COTO2 would censor and delete those postings has to make me wonder what her agenda is. ... Care to be identified in the shill line up Senor?


Sounds like Mr. Rogue should go to waybackmachine.org and enter in http://coto2.wordpress.com , which "has been crawled 26 times going all the way back to December 12, 2009." He should find his "brilliant commentaries" and rescue them from the memory hole and publish them to his blog. I, for one, would be most interested in reading them. Chop, chop! Hop to it, Mr. Rogue! Your audience is eagerly waiting!

Here's a rinky-dink coincidence. I helped Mr. McKee vanquish Albury Smith from Truth & Shadows in early 2011. We were encouraging Albury to start his own blog where his words could be preserved (and stand or fall on their own.) At any rate, it seems COTO2 is where Albury went, where he did battle Mr. Rogue, and then where Mr. Rogue and other were purged, thereby pretty much establishing the desired "blog of his own words" that indeed mostly "fall on their own", as was our suspicion.

For those interested in Mr. Rogue and "neu nookiedoo", here is a rabbit hole link (2012-10-09).

I have the capacity to change my mind on "neu nookiedoo" (neutron nuclear DEW [directed energy weapons]), as is my "duped useful idiot" nature. But my duping into some other belief has to be based on properly applied science & math to all of the evidence. Not only does Mr. Rogue not do this, but also the alternatives that he proposes do not do this. Here's a quote from Proverbs 3 from yesterday's church service:

The path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. The way of the wicked is as darkness: they know not at what they stumble.


Mr. Rogue stumbles at an imaginary garden hose several hundreds (of thousand) miles long packed with his chemical conventional & exotic incendiaries and explosives that were unspent in the WTC tower pulverization and would be needed (in a similar "fuse" configuration, no less) to account for the duration of under-rubble hot-spots. Doesn't seem too Occam Razor from a logistics point of view for perpetrators with deep pockets and access to every "nookie-and-cranny" in the arsenals of the world.

As long as I'm still pretending to be a govt agent promoting "neu nookiedoo" (neutron nuclear DEW [directed energy weapons]), just what exactly is my motivation and agenda other than distracting sheeple (with what I belief are honest to goodness nuggets of truth)? What govt goal does it achieve to prove to the public that 9/11 was nuclear? How does that help the PTB, the MIC, Israel, etc.?

P.S. I have zero plans on being a regular here.

// pretending that I'm a covert agent


x309 Señor El Once : Just an "A.Wright" coincidence

2012-10-25

Ah, shucks. Guess it sticks in Mr. Rogue's craw that:

[A] Like Mr. RuffAdam, I didn't have any arguments with what Mr. Rogue wrote to "A.Wright" either. Except that Mr. Rogue engaged him at all. Seems a bit "legacy-establishing"-like.

[B] Mr. RuffAdam wrote on October 3, 2012:

"Senior you do NOT fall into the category of "dishonest operators" as far as I am concerned."

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/09/30/official-911-propaganda-embraced-by-truthers-who-say-that-a-plane-hit-the-pentagon/#comment-13415

The technical limitations of COTO are entirely under the whims of this blog's WordPress admin, because T&S and Mr. Rogue's blog also WordPress sites do not have them.

Be that as it may, after experiencing COTO's posting limitations, I understand better why Mr. Rogue's postings on T&S are so formatting-deficient and why Mr. Rogue argues for short postings. Mr. Rogue wants T&S to come down to the lowest-common-denominator re-use factor deployed here.

On yet another note, I love Mr. Rogue's PR advance-man work on me:

2012-09-29: a tacky tar-baby that sticks to you once you engage it.
2012-10-10: Señor El Once aka The Duped Useful Idiot aka Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter…etc etc is a LIAR.
2012-10-19: a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation
2012-10-20: Señor is a chameleon, either the more expert and subtle agent, or simply the ‘duped and useful idiot' he claims to be.
2012-10-21: It could be he is the covert agent.
2012-10-21: Whatever the answer is, agent or crackpot, one thing is certain, he's a real fuckin' asshole.

I could teeter either way regarding belief in the words of Mr. Rogue's saluting supporter, Mr. Veritable1:

"The Rogue was brilliant in the commentaries he made in reference to what this jerk off is portending to discredit. Why the host of COTO2 would censor and delete those postings has to make me wonder what her agenda is. ... Care to be identified in the shill line up Senor?"

Although Mr. Rogue's brilliant commentaries were zapped from COTO2, two elements remain. The words of his discussion participants (e.g., Albury, A.Wright) hint in a action-reaction sense at the frequency of his efforts, while similar posting length restrictions hint at their depth. The wayback machine, despite its many scans, has its backups spaced too far apart to retrieve those brilliant words. A backwards extrapolation guesstimate from his T&S efforts still has COTO2 coming up short for what one could expect a proven-prolific retiree's efforts to be, but oh well. Such a sad sudden loss of written wisdom.

Here's a coincidence. To get the gift of a book delivered, the option chosen by the eager reader was to provide a mailing address, as opposed to ordering & paying on his own and then being re-imbursed through PayPal. Although not requested, the gift-receiver also gave a contact telephone number in the event issues in the delivery should arise. Recently when pretending to be an agent, a reverse look-up was performed on the lingering telephone number. No surprise that the physical address of the telephone number matched where the book was ordered to be sent. The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: "A.Wright". Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.

On this note, allow me to apologize for coming here and posting this, because I have no intention of being a regular contributor. But seeing how Mr. Rogue stuck something in my craw -- actually many things as seen above --, it seemed appropriate to take advantage of this one opportunity to respond so that Mr. Veritable1 might be justified in adding some "jerk off" to the "shill line-up."


x310 COTO Crew : Here's your hat and coat

2012-10-25


By: veritable1 on October 25, 2012
at 7:47 pm

Yada Yada Yada, Here's your hat and coat, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. We respect the Rogue'ster over here and cover each other's 6's, you're a bogy and in hostile territory so run along.

By: jerseyg on October 25, 2012
at 7:55 pm

Yea, indeed. Run along. We don't abide anyone coming here to slander our friends.

What's wrong with our format? PD??

By: hybridrogue1 on October 25, 2012
at 10:05 pm

Deb and Veri,

Thanks for the support. I think it's pretty funny, I mean the bit about my mom's last name, sheeeeeze!__talk about weak synapses connections…woowoo!!

We got the meat-grinder right here for ya if you want to keep sticking your tongue in it Maxi baby….{grin}

\\][//

By: veritable1 on October 25, 2012
at 10:17 pm

He isn't as much fun as agent Assbury. I doubt if this dweeb'll keep it up for 771 comments. You named the agent "Albury Smith" Will.. You bring that up online, it comes right up. He or it actually has some notoriety. Funny that.


By: hybridrogue1 on October 25, 2012
at 11:56 pm

"He isn't as much fun as agent Assbury."

Actually Max is just a bore.

\\][//


x311 Señor El Once : an affinity to the initial "A" and a particular last name

2012-10-26

Dear Mr. Veritable1,

Thank you so much for handing me my hat and coat; with the onset of real weather, they are indispensable. As well, kind regards for your gracious thoughts into the safety of my glutius maximus with respect to getting impacted by the exit door with an energetic closing mechanism.

Dear Ms. JerseyG,

Slander has not been uttered, and the writing is not libel if it can be proven true. But because it involves your "friends," I understand the sentiment that lends them the benefit of the doubt first and makes abiding the pop-up entrances of someone typing such words a formidable obstacle to comprehension.

Dear Mr. Rogue,

It was not my intent for either of us to publicly reveal your mother's name, so my humble apologies. The salient point that you confirm is that you have an affinity to the initial "A" and a particular last name, which might lead one to suspect that an alias with that initial and last name might really be a sock-puppet. It gives stunning new depth and perspective to the lessons you taught of pincer movements in the discussion forums.

Everybody,

You go right on ahead and keep "covering each other's 6's." I will gladly heed the advice to "run along."

This "bogy" is now outbound from "hostile territory."

Ya'all have a great time. Carry on. "Yada Yada Yada."

//


x312 hybridrogue1 : numerous ‘seems' and ‘seemingly'

2012-10-25

By: hybridrogue1 on October 25, 2012
at 9:41 pm

"Seems a bit "legacy-establishing"-like."~Maxwell Smartass

There are numerous ‘seems' and ‘seemingly' thoughts in Maxi's shallow brain pan…it does not seem thus, but is flaming in your face obvious!

So, yea my mom's name is Ruth Wright, having married a Wright, who was my stepdad from the time I was around four years old. But we shall let not the slightest coincidence pass without due deliberation when we are desperate to frame me as a SECRET AGENT MAN.

As far as "legacy" – WTF? Although it pissed me off to high heaven when Kuntananda trashed all of those long hours of works in words, this whole bit about ‘establishing a legacy' had never crossed my mind until the concept was introduced by the Beancounter.

As it is just so that the subtext reveals where the author is really poised, it is obvious that this ‘legacy' deal is of utmost importance to Señor Asshole Rex.

Slander is all he has. This much has become increasingly obvious as time goes by…

The post by Adam Ruff obviously really got to him, aye?

Standing on the 5th was your best option Mr Bridges, I advise you fall back to it.

\\][//


x313 Señor El Once : I meant: "legend-establishing" and my craw is clean

2012-10-26

"Legacy-establishing"?!! Oh, I'm sorry for that freudian slip. Mr. Rogue is absolutely correct that I didn't mean for this to apply here. The word "legacy" comes from a discussion with another who really has been building an internet legacy, and due to its similar spelling, it slipped in my prose to Mr. Rogue.

Instead of "legacy", I meant "legend."

I meant: "legend-establishing".

Still, though, given that Mr. Rogue has expressed interest in writing the biography of his very interesting life, the freudian slip of "legacy" might have some applicability. It was indeed his legacy that I sought on line, and was disappointed.

"Framing Mr. Rogue as a SECRET AGENT MAN"? My regrets. "Forgive me, because I know not what I do." My real intent has never been for this frame to stick but for this frame to jar. In fact, I've provided plenty of building material for a new frame to be constructed. We know what they say about leading a jack-ass to water but not being able to make them drink. Of the three words, emphasis should be on the first word: "good," "bad," and "ugly." That's all that is required for a new, more accurate frame to be constructed that highlights a reflective picture that Mr. Rogue, his mother, and I would be pleased to see.

Meanwhile, an interesting written occurrence appears when two of Mr. Rogue's paragraphs are run together: "... of utmost importance to Señor Asshole Rex. Slander is all he has." Were those very words spoken, by golly they'd be representative of slander that Mr. Rogue seems to decry. They were written, though, so become libelous.

P.S. Again, my humble apologies that Mr. Rogue's mother's name should be publicly revealed. I wrote no first names, no gender cues; just a connection to Mr. Rogue where he might have an affinity to certain names. It would be kind of funny if the "A.Wright" alias is NOT his sock-puppet, but his actual mother with whom he's been debating. Good to know that "A.Wright" can share his copy of "Judy, Judy, Judy" and "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff", so I can cross that alias off of my secret-Santa list.

// my craw is clean


x314 hybridrogue1 : Do you actually think I care what you think?

2012-10-26

WTF Maxiloon?

Do you actually think I care what you think?

What is it you are trying to prove here? So far you have verified you are an asshole. So that cannot be "slander" but a simple statement of fact.

There is no payoff to be found here. If you're bored go count the "slanders" I dished out on T&S, take your time to find each and every one, time stamp and dated in chronological order. If that's not enough for you then an addendum of the same material in alphabetical order might be handy.

Then at the first opportunity you can spring it on me as a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog.

And when you finish doing that, bring in the dog and put out the cat…

\\][//

"…the writing is not libel if it can be proven true."~Maxiconjob

That has always been your problem Max, your framing of opinion as fact, assumptions swollen like zeppelins of hot air floating like phantoms through your highly charged textual tango jango.

Your "humble apologies" are as obviously disingenuous as the rest of your burlesque.

Go count beans.

\\][//


x315 Señor El Once : sock-puppet and bringing in the dog and putting out the cat

2012-10-26

Dear Mr. RuffAdam,

You wrote on October 2, 2012 at 11:37 PM:

Within the truth movement itself I also find the source of the information to be of great importance. For example, here on this blog, I do not trust a single word from certain people's mouths because I have seen them operate dishonestly before. ... I find that engaging in debate with certain personality types is futile.

Operating dishonestly? Hmmm? I wonder how sock-puppetry fits into that category?

You recently wrote to Mr. Rogue regarding his "handling of Mr. Wright":

Rest assured that myself and many others keep up with these conversations even in those cases where it looks as though you are the lone voice to counter the disinformationists.

How would your opinion change if you learned that Mr. Rogue -- "being retired and having little to distract him, as well as having time to pursue these dialogs" -- wasn't the "lone voice", but was singing duets with himself, batting for both teams, and arguing both sides?

It has not been definitively proven but strong speculation of sock-puppetry is on the table due to a family affinity of one partipant to the alias name of another participant.

On the one hand, it might be getting back at the govt modus operandus regarding the best way to control the opposition being to lead it. Turns that one on its head, as a 9/11 Truther (?) controls the argument he thinks the govt would make with his sock-puppet, and then knocks the govt's strawman down.

On the other hand, the suspected sock-puppet antics didn't meet my previous definitions of "dishonest multiple-alias usage", because the aliases were not tag-teaming and manufacturing false solidarity to one-side of a given topic. But they were doing the pincer type attacks that Mr. Rogue was fond of reminding us about.

On the third hand, all good theatrical productions require some form of conflict, otherwise they are just bland interchanges of "me, too" and "roger that." As a rhetorical tool, it serves a purpose. Here, it probably served its purpose.

However, my previous definitions regarding "dishonest alias usage" can be amended. When the sock-puppet could never be a full, complete, well-rounded online entity, because differences and beliefs had to be compartmentalized and manufactured [e.g., ala the MKUltra split in personalities] in order to fire up contention points for debate, then the stiltedness of the sock-puppet's views verging into "brain-dead unobjectivism" becomes just one troubling surface aspect. The sock-puppet's beliefs, not being genuine, means that no satisfactory resolution to a debate will ever be reached, no moment of "either you convinced me, or I convinced you."

The extent of insincere beliefs of a participant must necessarily be questioned for not just the sock-puppet, but also for the participant's other aliases.

But a more troubling contemplation relates to the Thomas Pynchon quote:

If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

If a sock-puppet can get the T&S discussion circling around "pencils piercing mosquito screen doors" and "NORAD response times," ... well... So much for serious questions into validating (or not) my one remaining 9/11 hobby-horse of "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear directed energy weapon].

The paranoid in me sees the online debates of Mr. Wright versus Mr. Rogue -- just two personality splits -- as 9/11 Truther legend-establishing. I found the Mr. Wright-split too "intractable" (today the word becomes "manufactured") easily a month or two before Mr. Rogue's entrance in January 2012, and even counseled Mr. Rogue and others to not engage Mr. Wright.

2012-02-17:

Ooooh! I like it! I never called you [Mr. Rogue] a "provocateur", but I like it. It is exactly what you are doing. [As if I didn't notice how you are trying to crank up a discussion with Mr. A. Wright, who arrived just after Mr. Albury Smith was shown the moderator's door and who already has a reputation here. Not a good sign.]

2012-05-17:

When you consider how you should handle me henceforth, recognize that you are under no obligation to handle me. It isn't your blog. It isn't your place. [Unless that is your assignment and your agenda.] Take a lesson from how I handle A. Wright: ignore me. In fact, that you engage A. Wright at all [after being told not to and after recognizing for yourself his nature] becomes a data point fitting into a trend line. It starts to have the appearance of a tactic to build your legend as a 9/11 Truther.

2012-09-24:

I have written my advice regarding Mr. A. Wright elsewhere. In essence, don't waste too many keystrokes on him.



My, how ironic those earlier words look in light of today's revelation.

Mr. RuffAdam wrote here:

If I had any arguments with what you [Mr. Rogue] have said I would have spoken up. I have not found any reason (so far) to disagree with you concerning what I have read of your posts.


I didn't have any arguments with what Mr. Rogue was writing to "Mr. Wright" either, except for the fact that Mr. Rogue was engaging "him." Correction, as it turns out. Mr. Rogue was engaging "himself."

I've got many references to Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly in other ways, like this one from 2012-10-04 or this one from 2012-10-06.

But this sock-puppetry is in a different league of craftiness. The A-team of the Q-Group, perhaps? Certainly more resemblance to the "Sunsteinian ‘reverse psychology operation' and PSYOPS THEATER" regularly mentioned by Mr. Rogue.

My apologies to you and the lurker-readers for the brain-f++k this twist in players turns out to be.

So much for my hopes of ever convincing Mr. Rogue that I'm not: "a tacky tar-baby, Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter, a chameleon, crackpot, and a real fuckin' asshole."

// "bringing in the dog and putting out the cat"


x316 Señor El Once : eutectic corrosion

2012-10-26

On this very day, Mr. Rogue gets his "A.Wright" sock-puppet exposed. Now he's back to his steering agenda to distract from that revelation, maybe because he fears he needs to get in his "no-nookie" whacks before he gets banned.

Let's start with the caption to the photo:

Conventional explosives don't explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars.


First of all, I didn't provide any photos, so I didn't write any captions.

Secondly, my views have changed since penning this piece based on new evidence and analysis. Dr. Wood's book is interesting and relevant, but also has among its nuggets of truth its own cache of disinformation. Of course, Mr. Rogue has pin-pointed nuggets of neither disinfo nor truth in Dr. Wood's work. His only contribution has been bloody noses from (figuratively) smashing her book into his own face in lieu of reading it.

I now advocate neu nookiedoo, where part of the credit for this coinage goes to Mr. Rogue. It stands for "neutron nuclear directed energy weapon" to me, but looking up "neutron bomb" and "enhanced radiation weapon (ERW)" will take a sincere truth-seeker far in understanding it.

Mr. Rogue is correct in stating:

These cars were towed to where they are seen in this photo.


However, in trying to wave-off the notion that "conventional explosives don't explain what burned these and hundreds of other cars", Mr. Rogue tries another of his PR hynotic suggestions:

This is not true, this is very certainly eutectic corrosion that we see.


Too bad that your unexplained and ill-understood word "eutectic" comes up short for explaining all of the damaged vehicles along West Broadway and the car park, torched before WTC-7 came down.

Arguments have been made addressing every one of Mr Bridges suppositions.


In Mr. Rogue's dreams, maybe. In Mr. Rogue's PR hynotic suggestion, maybe. In actual fact? No. And without links, Mr. Rogue is talking through his wallet still in his pants pocket.

His rejection of these critiques have all been based on spurious rationalizations.


No, my rejection have been based on the critiques not existing to the depth and detail required. They don't go corner-to-corner on all the evidence.

Worse, the alternatives that Mr. Rogue always comes back around to proposing -- some combination of conventional and exotic explosives and incendiaries -- have insurmountable problems in explaining both ends: [A] the brissant pulverization and [B] the duration of under-rubble hot-spots.

I would love to read Gage and Cole's response to this open letter, but I doubt if they would bother, as most all of us are familiar with Wood's pseudo-scientific shenanigans at this point.


Mr. Rogue should point out specific examples of pseudo-science [other than the Hutchison Effects]. Chapters 1-3, where's the pseudo-science? the errors?

Mr. Cole, through Mr. Chandler, said essentially: "don't even bother responding to [me]." Because as you have experienced, responding to me gives me lots of opportunities for rejoiners that raise uncomfortable questions and hammer my points home.

Mr. Gage? He has been too involved with concensus matters. He -- like Chander -- prove that the observed manner of the destruction proves that it could not have been plane impacts, jet fuel fires, and gravity. Red flakes of nano-thermite Dr. Jones found in the dust. Both are sufficient to prove the govt's story a lie and to press for a new investigation. No need to speculation beyond that until the new investigation is underway, is essentially their position. Alas, this "thus far and no farther" halting approach to supposing what could meet the energy requirements of the destruction and aftermath tends to play into the hands of those "steering the 9/11TM away from any form of nuclear considerations."

//


x317 hybridrogue1 : I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is.

2012-10-27

By: hybridrogue1 on October 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm

I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is.

“Maxwell Circuits Bridges” is too obvious a made up name having to do with electrical circuitry.

So we are actually dealing with an anonymous troll when dealing with this character.

I am obviously who I have presented myself to be, Willy Whitten, a retired special effects artist. Anyone can look my bona fides up on a web search.

So we have this ghoul posing behind numerous monikers…how many? He could be A. Wright himself for all anybody knows, hell he could even be the infamous Albury Smith!!!

He is a phantom, a gaseous non d’plume that can do and say anything with impunity. He cites “the founding fathers” as precedent for the use of these aliases…but as we well know, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were sneaky sonsofbitches that hoisted a central national government on revolutionary America.

They were elitists grasping for total control, and designed a “constitution” that has resulted in just that, a full spectrum dominance dictatorship and police state.

So who is Maxwell Smartass? That is the prime question at this stage, he is clearly an underhanded slimeball, more interested in creating his “legend” than seeking the truth.

I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria.

\\][//


x318 Señor El Once : Demonstrate some ethics and morality in the pursuit of the information that you seek

2012-10-27

{As of 2012-10-28 8:30 am, this posting and some of its responses no longer appears on COTO. Formatting is "reduced" to accomodate the posting limitations of COTO.}

Mr. Rogue writes:
"I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is. “Maxwell Circuits Bridges” is too obvious a made up name having to do with electrical circuitry."

Demonstrate some ethics and morality in the pursuit of the information that you seek. Contact me off-list with your request, and maybe I might just grant you a login to the kingdom or a FaceBook name to avoid the real damage on a real person that you seem intent on inflicting, either at your own hand or your own command, should your co-horts here "misunderstand" and do the dirty deed for you "by accident."

To the colleagues of Mr. Rogue in this forum,

Mr. Rogue plays you, as well, and this can have multiple meanings beyond the exposed A.Wright sock-puppetry. Take Mr. Rogue's second sentence above. He acts as if he didn't already know that he was explicitly told by email more than three times (and a web posting) what was a "pen name." Manufactured drama.

Here's another example of you being played. He writes:
"So who is Maxwell Smartass? That is the prime question at this stage, he is clearly an underhanded slimeball, more interested in creating his "legend" than seeking the truth."

No, actually, I thought the prime question at this stage would have been "how does neu nookiedoo fit in with seeking the truth?"

Mr. Rogue turning the question on me personally -- attacking the messenger -- ought to re-focus who we think of as "an underhanded slimeball."

Mr. Veritable writes:
"EL Senor Whacko obviously thinks this is a contest and not a striving to reveal the truth."

Obviously, you have not read any of my legacy. You have been given sufficient clues to go searching for my work, and a fair assessment of my work will be "an honest striving to reveal truth." Look, neu nookiedoo doesn't get stuck in the treads of my black shoes because I'm not striving to reveal that truth. And the read-between-the-lines direction that Mr. Rogue's personal attacks take?

Mr. Rogue writes:
"I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria."

Be careful of that karma thing, Mr. Rogue. I hereby state that I have no suicidal inclinations. So, if something of this "he got suicided" nature actually happens, well...

Should anyone be curious about why I use a pen-name, let the implications of the outing that Mr. Rogue seems to demand sink in. The penalties to me will be real, thanks to google. Karma will make you sick if this Rogue games goes any further and you have a hand in it.

If you all want to conspire behind the scenes and trade URLs, links, and even FaceBook names (that I provided to Mr. Rogue) as well as obscene descriptions of me, you go right ahead. You just be careful not to do anything in a posting "uh-oh" nano-moment that demonstrates your own ethics and morals, or lack thereof.

++++
And now we return to our regularly scheduled posting that was already in progress and almost completed when Mr. Rogue demonstrated a completely new level "doing ANYTHING to win."
++++

Speaking of "a crazy motherfucker who will do and say ANYTHING to win," Mr. Rogue did such a hatchet job of re-publishing the very posting THAT HE REQUESTED (see above October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm) that what appears here isn't comprehensible.

He didn't pay enough attention to details, such as who was saying what. Given the stark limitations of this forum, the very least he could have done was insert some ==== lines to flag the beginning and ending of extended quotes.

His piss-poor efforts have him deliberately misquoting me and attributing to me words that I did not write (because they came from others). Such "putting words into my mouth" is actually a proven accusation that I leveled repeated against Mr. Rogue in the past.

Gee, and it wasn't posted "this morning" (October 27, 2012) as he claims; it was posted yesterday (October 26, 2012 – 5:03 pm), the very day and possibly even within the hour [if COTO and T&S are in the same time zone] that he requested it (October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm). Mr. Rogue asked me so nicely:

"Then at the first opportunity you can spring it on me as a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog."

My apologies that it came up short on the desired 2000 words.

The proper link to it is:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14195

This "not paying enough attention to details" extends into his arguments against neu nookiedoo. Case in point, the article that I wrote called "On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole" reflects my understanding from June 7, 2011, but not from October 27, 2012. Mr. Rogue knows that I now deviate from Dr. Wood, and that the reason he gets bloody noses with his own copy of Dr. Wood's textbook is for missing the nuggets of truth (e.g., the stark evidence of 9/11 being nuclear.) The responses that Mr. Rogue placed both in that thread and here don't just miss details, they are over-eager demonstrations of strawman arguments by "a crazy motherfucker who will do and say ANYTHING to win." In this case, winning is defined by shutting down public contemplation into 9/11 being nuclear -- neu nookiedoo.

Ah, yes, but we still have my lingering accusation that "A.Wright" is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, which is re-enforced by the many instances where Mr. Rogue rose up to engage A.Wright and easily defeat his arguments, despite the fact that doing so was often another spin on the carousel.

// @ 950 Words or 5,522 characters with spaces


x320 hybridrogue1 : get the fuck out and don’t come back

2012-10-27

{As of 2012-10-28 8:30 AM MST, this posting from hybridrogue1 no longer appears.}

By: hybridrogue1 on October 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm

So, you are NOT really named Maxwell C. Bridges. Is that clear?

You seem to say this above and to say that you made it clear before and yet even now it is not totally clear.

Whatever, and whoever…just get the fuck out and don’t come back, we are most tired of your continuing on with your ‘clarification’ as to what a sick-sack’o'shit you really are.

And no no no YOU took nookiedew off the table and replaced it with your lunatic self with this sock-puppet bullshit to do with A Wright.

“950 Words or 5,522 characters” too many Beancounter.

\\][//



x321 hybridrogue1 : 513,617 people in the United States with the surname of Wright

2012-10-27

hybridrogue1
October 27, 2012 – 2:01 pm

NOTE: There are 513,617 people in the United States with the surname of Wright.

It is obvious that Señor is now grasping at straws in order to defame me. The question is why? What is this rag that he is on? What is he up to? In fact who is this Señor El Once himself? He is anonymous when it comes down to it.

Maxwell Circuits Bridges. Anyone who knows electricity understands that a Maxwell bridge has to do with electrical circuitry. So it is natural to assume that this moniker is not this character’s real name. Therefore we have an anonymous troll on Truth & Shadows, who is intent on framing me as an agent. He has been on this crusade since I first arrived.

Why?

As far as any complaints as to “outing” Señor as Bridges, this comes from this very blog itself:
"This piece, written by Maxwell C. Bridges…is a frequent contributor to this blog under the name Señor El Once."~Craig McKee in his introduction:

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/06/07/on-the-directed-energy-weapon-hypothesis-an-open-letter-to-gage-and-cole/

\\][//


x322 hybridrogue1 : never imagined you would stoop so low

2012-10-27

hybridrogue1
October 27, 2012 – 11:16 am

Mr Maxwell Bridges, or whoever the hell you actually are…perhaps even the infamous Albury Smith himself under a clever aka…???

I would have never imagined you would stoop so low as the vile lies you just posted on the “Ventura, Asner” thread.

How does one respond to a maniac such as yourself who will do and say absolutely ANYTHING to “win”?

I know that you were deeply insulted at the reception you received when posting on COTO, you are obviously not welcome there. You claim you have ‘cleared your craw’…
..no no Señor, you are choking on it. Your hysteria has reached a climax now, one I am certain you will not recover from.

I don’t have to do anything but watch now, you have sealed your own fate.

\\][//


x323 Señor El Once : tossing myself off my high bridge in my dizzy hysteria

2012-10-27

{The interesting aspects to this posting. Despite my ability to effortless post to the COTO WordPress site, it took me six attempts to post this to the T&S WordPress site, attempts that inbetween had me closing browsers and other things to get over non-responsive posting efforts. I expect that Mr. McKee was enjoying his Saturday night, which is why even on Sunday morning 2012-10-28 9:00 MST, I still do not see this posting approved.}

This June 7, 2011 article reflects my understanding of 9/11 at that point in time. Being now October 27, 2012, my understanding has evolved. The questions I raised into the energy levels required for pulverization as well as into reasonable sources for the hot-spots remain valid.

I still champion Dr. Wood's textbook for the evidence that she presents and many nuggets of truth. Alas, I now believe that it has disinformation as well -- and in fact, it probably never would have gotten published or its author survived if it didn't have such. Our task is to locate and preserve those nuggets of truth, and to extrapolate into the true causes of the WTC decimation that I believe was (multiple) ERW that used neutron radiation from the nuclear devices to achieve the observed destruction.

Mr. Rogue knows that I deviate from Dr. Wood's conclusions. So his over-eager responses here have other purposes and another agenda. Actually, his immediate agenda appears to be "damage control" from the revelation that "A.Wright" was his sock-puppet that he used to establish "street-cred" and his 9/11 Truther legend.

I was a bit imprecise in my wording. I believe that "A.Wright" is the sock-puppet and was never genuine. After my encounters in late 2011, I could see little benefit in feeding that troll, and told others to ignore him.

+++ Interruption

This posting and that thought were interrupted by the escalation of "damage control" to a new and very personal level on Mr. Rogue's home turf. Mr. hybridrogue1 writes:

I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is.

“Maxwell Circuits Bridges” is too obvious a made up name having to do with electrical circuitry.

So we are actually dealing with an anonymous troll when dealing with this character.

I am obviously who I have presented myself to be, Willy Whitten, a retired special effects artist. Anyone can look my bona fides up on a web search.

So we have this ghoul posing behind numerous monikers…how many? He could be A. Wright himself for all anybody knows, hell he could even be the infamous Albury Smith!!!

He is a phantom, a gaseous non d’plume that can do and say anything with impunity. He cites “the founding fathers” as precedent for the use of these aliases…but as we well know, Hamilton, Jay, and Madison were sneaky sonsofbitches that hoisted a central national government on revolutionary America.

They were elitists grasping for total control, and designed a “constitution” that has resulted in just that, a full spectrum dominance dictatorship and police state.

So who is Maxwell Smartass? That is the prime question at this stage, he is clearly an underhanded slimeball, more interested in creating his “legend” than seeking the truth.

I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria.

\\][//

Because his last sentence could have serious read-between-the-lines implications, I posted his entire words as well as my response below [although formatted improved, errors corrected, and {curly brace} clarifications added.]

++++ BEGIN Nested COTO Posting 2012-10-27

Mr. Rogue writes:

"I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is. "Maxwell Circuits Bridges" is too obvious a made up name having to do with electrical circuitry."

Demonstrate some ethics and morality in the pursuit of the information that you seek. Contact me off-list with your request, and maybe I might just grant you a login to the kingdom or a FaceBook name to avoid the real damage on a real person that you seem intent on inflicting, either at your own hand or your own command, should your co-horts here "misunderstand" and do the dirty deed for you "by accident."

To the colleagues of Mr. Rogue in this {Coto} forum,

Mr. Rogue plays you, as well, and this can have multiple meanings beyond the exposed A.Wright sock-puppetry. Take Mr. Rogue's second sentence above. He acts as if he didn't already know that he was explicitly told by email more than three times (and a web posting) what was a "pen name." Manufactured drama.

Here's another example of you being played. He writes:

"So who is Maxwell Smartass? That is the prime question at this stage, he is clearly an underhanded slimeball, more interested in creating his "legend" than seeking the truth."

No, actually, I thought the prime question at this stage would have been:

"how does neu nookiedoo fit in with seeking the truth?"

Mr. Rogue turning the question on me personally -- attacking the messenger -- ought to re-focus who we think of as "an underhanded slimeball."

Mr. Veritable writes:

"EL Senor Whacko obviously thinks this is a contest and not a striving to reveal the truth."

Obviously, you have not read any of my legacy. You have been given sufficient clues to go searching for my work, and a fair assessment of my work will be "an honest striving to reveal truth." Look, neu nookiedoo doesn't get stuck in the treads of my black shoes because I'm not striving to reveal that truth. And the read-between-the-lines direction that Mr. Rogue's personal attacks take?

Mr. Rogue writes:

"I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria."

Be careful of that karma thing, Mr. Rogue. I hereby state that I have no suicidal inclinations. So, if something of this "he got suicided" nature actually happens, well...

Should anyone be curious about why I use a pen-name, let the implications of the outing that Mr. Rogue seems to demand sink in. The penalties to me will be real, thanks to google. Karma will make you sick if this Rogue games goes any further and you have a hand in it.

If you all want to conspire behind the scenes and trade URLs, links, and even FaceBook names (that I provided to Mr. Rogue) as well as obscene descriptions of me, you go right ahead. You just be careful not to do anything in a posting "uh-oh" nano-moment that demonstrates your own ethics and morals, or lack thereof.

++++
And now we return to our regularly scheduled posting {on COTO} that was already in progress and almost completed when Mr. Rogue demonstrated a completely new level "doing ANYTHING to win."
++++

Speaking of "a crazy motherfucker who will do and say ANYTHING to win," Mr. Rogue did such a hatchet job of re-publishing the very posting THAT HE REQUESTED (see above October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm) that what appears here isn't comprehensible.

He didn't pay enough attention to details, such as who was saying what. Given the stark limitations of this forum, the very least he could have done was insert some ==== lines to flag the beginning and ending of extended quotes.

His piss-poor efforts have him deliberately misquoting me and attributing to me words that I did not write (because they came from others). Such "putting words into my mouth" is actually a proven accusation that I leveled repeated against Mr. Rogue in the past.

Gee, and it wasn't posted "this morning" (October 27, 2012) as he claims; it was posted yesterday (October 26, 2012 – 5:03 pm), the very day and possibly even within the hour [if COTO and T&S are in the same time zone] that he requested it (October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm). Mr. Rogue asked me so nicely:

"Then at the first opportunity you can spring it on me as a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog."

My apologies that it came up short on the desired 2000 words.

The proper link to it is:
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/10/11/ventura-asner-ae-film-and-a-legal-heavyweight-provide-good-news-for-911-truth/#comment-14195

This "not paying enough attention to details" extends into his arguments against neu nookiedoo. Case in point, the article that I wrote called "On the Directed Energy Weapon Hypothesis: an open letter to Gage and Cole" reflects my understanding from June 7, 2011, but not from October 27, 2012. Mr. Rogue knows that I now deviate from Dr. Wood, and that the reason he gets bloody noses with his own copy of Dr. Wood's textbook is for missing the nuggets of truth (e.g., the stark evidence of 9/11 being nuclear.) The responses that Mr. Rogue placed both in that thread and here don't just miss details, they are over-eager demonstrations of strawman arguments by "a crazy motherfucker who will do and say ANYTHING to win." In this case, winning is defined by shutting down public contemplation into 9/11 being nuclear -- neu nookiedoo.

Ah, yes, but we still have my lingering accusation that "A.Wright" is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, which is re-enforced by the many instances where Mr. Rogue rose up to engage A.Wright and easily defeat his arguments, despite the fact that doing so was often another spin on the carousel.

++++ END Nested COTO Posting 2012-10-27

Mr. Rogue is determined today to insert distance, distortion, and distraction. My posting above is interrupted by yet another three from Mr. Rogue:

- 2012-10-27 11:18 am T&S DEW thread
- 2012-10-27 2:01 pm T&S Ventura thread
- 2012-10-27 5:18 pm COTO


In this very thread, he writes:

I would have never imagined you would stoop so low as the vile lies you just posted on the “Ventura, Asner” thread.

On the COTO thread, he writes:

And no no no YOU took nookiedew off the table and replaced it with your lunatic self with this sock-puppet bullshit to do with A Wright.

If Mr. Rogue was not the sock-puppet master of A.Wright, it would have sufficed a simple: "You are unfortunately mistaken; I am not A.Wright."

And then I and all readers would have chalked it up to a rinky-dink coincidence that Mr. Rogue likes to crank the carousel handle of an online entity have an initial and the same last name as a familial person close to him. [Here's some irony. My pen-name has similar familial re-use. El-Oh-El.]

As John Belushi used to say on SNL, "But, NOO-ooooo!..."

Since the October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm timestamp on COTO of my mentioning of "just a coincidence with no explanation needed," observe how many non-denial and distracting postings came from Mr. Rogue (so far) on COTO:

- October 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm
- October 25, 2012 at 10:05 pm
- October 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm
- October 26, 2012 at 12:09 am
- October 26, 2012 at 9:22 am
- October 26, 2012 at 3:46 pm
- October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm
- October 26, 2012 at 7:21 pm
- October 26, 2012 at 9:04 pm
- October 26, 2012 at 10:02 pm
- October 27, 2012 at 10:27 am
- October 27, 2012 at 12:36 pm
- October 27, 2012 at 2:21 pm
- October 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm (in response to my October 27, 2012 at 3:15 pm)
- October 27, 2012 at 5:47 pm

Within this T&S thread, we have the following non-denial and distracting postings (whereby several overlap the above COTO postings):

- October 26, 2012 – 4:50 pm
- October 26, 2012 – 9:19 pm
- October 26, 2012 – 10:24 pm
- October 26, 2012 – 10:39 pm
- October 27, 2012 – 11:16 am

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

The [no-nookie lord] doth protest too much, methinks.

In conclusion, Mr. Rogue-on-the-ropes is doing his best at damage control. Other than an "A.Wright" sock-puppet being another data point in the trend-line of Mr. Rogue's dishonesty [with many other data points oh so easily served up with URLs upon request], Mr. Rogue is manufacturing way too much drama about it and stoops very low [in alignment with the trend-line] to garrison very personal (and google-lasting) attacks on me.

It ain't about me. It ain't about Mr. Rogue or his sock-puppets.

It should be about how America was (or wasn't) nuked on 9/11. I say it was with nuggets of truth from various (disinfo) sources to prove it. Mr. Rogue stumbles over garden hoses in saying it wasn't, whether or not A.Wright is "all right" in terms of his very existence.

// @ 1,989 Words


x324 Señor El Once : plain nuts with substantiation

2012-10-28

Dear Mr. Adam Ruff, you write:

OK Senior this post was just plain nuts. You accuse HR1 of using sock puppets but provide no proof to support your accusation which renders the accusation meaningless.

I agree with your "plain nuts" assessment.

With regards to proof to support my accusation that "A.Wright" is Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, I was purposely keeping it on the thin side, because there is no call for me to reveal personal information about Mr. Rogue.

As the back-story unfolds, Mr. Rogue was doing a fine job of characterizing me on his home COTO court:

2012-09-29: a tacky tar-baby that sticks to you once you engage it.
2012-10-10: Señor El Once aka The Duped Useful Idiot aka Señor El Goombah aka The Beancounter…etc etc is a LIAR.
2012-10-19: a pretender who uses disingenuous argumentation
2012-10-20: Señor is a chameleon, either the more expert and subtle agent, or simply the 'duped and useful idiot' he claims to be.
2012-10-21: It could be he is the covert agent.
2012-10-21: Whatever the answer is, agent or crackpot, one thing is certain, he’s a real fuckin’ asshole.

He chummed the waters with plenty of bait to lure me over there. As part of my entrance and introduction to my exit on October 25, 2012 at 7:28 pm, I made the following observation:

Here’s a coincidence. To get the gift of a book delivered, the option chosen by the eager reader was to provide a mailing address, as opposed to ordering & paying on his own and then being re-imbursed through PayPal. Although not requested, the gift-receiver also gave a contact telephone number in the event issues in the delivery should arise. Recently when pretending to be an agent, a reverse look-up was performed on the lingering telephone number. No surprise that the physical address of the telephone number matched where the book was ordered to be sent. The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: “A.Wright”. Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.

In case that is too cryptic for you, the book in question is Dr. Wood's, and the gift-receiver was a thankful Mr. Rogue who since that time has been getting regular bloody noses from that very same book snapping shut on it in lieu of him mining the book for nuggets of truth: the good, the bad, and the ugly. In order to receive the book, he had to supply the shipping address, but gave the telephone number at his on volition in case delivery problems arose. [And it isn't as if I tricked him into giving me any personal information, because he passed on on another option that did not require me learning anything about him.]

It should be noted that I did not mention a first name or any gender distinctions. At the onset, Mr. Rogue connects some dots {with my editing} on October 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm:

So, yea my mom’s name is {... edit ...} Wright, having married a Wright, ...

He doesn't mention the middle initial that she uses, but if it were anything other than "A", I would have had nothing to tweak Mr. Rogue about, period. [Ironically, my own pen-name also reflects familial under-pinnings of a very similar nature, so I can say with certainty that such "unoriginality" and reliance on "the familiar" is quite common in online personas.]

And then all hell broke loose on three fronts: this thread, that COTO thread, and an old T&S DEW thread authored by me. Just the eifer in the fast pace of Mr. Rogue's distracting responses to build distance is of note. Oh that's right! I did note it, if you follow the link and can follow the interruptions to my righting that Mr. Rogue necessitated.

It is worthwhile to read the nested postings at the DEW article, despite its "plain nuts" organization. Why? Because within 12 hours of me posting my reply on COTO urging caution, that posting and a few from the COTO crew (including Mr. Rogue) were removed. The COTO postings were removed before their re-purposed verbiage saw the light of day under the DEW article, due to posting delays through Mr. McKee and despite their T&S datestamp. However, the T&S posting did take six attempts that involved shutting down browsers before it would take, in addition to waiting for Mr. McKee overnight.

The nature of the hell breaking loose is worthy of study.

Mr. Adam Ruff writes the challenge:

Next you accuse HR1 of operating dishonestly but provide no specifics as to what he said or did that was dishonest.

Obviously, my postings fit into the category of those you skip over [and I don't blame you.] "Beancounter" that I have been accused of being, I have about 11 months of on-line debate material that I can quickly reference to specific comments under various articles on T&S to prove instance after instance [but not all at once, mostly whenever Mr. Rogue was on the ropes] of "Mr. Rogue's operating dishonestly" in his debates against me. I spare this forum such tedium today, and it doesn't take much googling to find. I'm sure that Mr. McKee or Mr. Rogue will vouch for my abilities in this realm (if your own googling doesn't), in lieu of me distracting this thread with such busy-work.

You only provide links to posts but make no mention of what in them is dishonest. Am I supposed to read your mind as to what specifically you find to be dishonest? I cannot read minds nor do I want to spend what little time I have trying to figure out your logic.

I never asked you to read minds; sorry if I left that impression. The links took you to the culmination of a couple bouts with Mr. Rogue and explain what just went on there at that time. Aside from following the links, I expected that if curious, you would be able to scroll (up) for context to verify (or not) my assessment of those situations.

To spell out but one of the links, this October 7, 2012 posting of mine under "And then there was one..." is the culmination of a Rogue bout where he accused me of being on "a crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones." Again, you can read it on your own and scroll up within the thread to get more context. The crusade wasn't, neither were the attack or belittling of Dr. Jones; they were Mr. Rogue lying. Discussing the weaknesses in Dr. Jones work is and has been fair game for critique, which is where I've held myself pretty close to that line.

Let's take a brief detour in the sudden appearance of A.Wright and your reaction:

I notice you choose not to reply to the post above of (October 25, 2012 – 12:03 am) where I discuss your straw man tactics and how you attempted to discredit Barrie Zwicker by misquoting him. So do you plan to just pretend the post is not there or will there be a meaningful response forthcoming? I will not risk holding my breath for your response because something tells me I will be waiting quite a while.

Misquoting me is something that Mr. Rogue has regularly deployed as a dishonest tactic, as were copious amounts of straw man tactics. You do the math and figure out what sort of a response you could expect from a potential sock-puppet whose puppet-master is tripping on the ropes of his own games and damage control.

The significance of the three other quotes from me (02-17, 05-17, 9-24) were my assessment of A.Wright based on experiences in late 2011. I could sense that he wasn't genuine, so I stopped engaging him seriously except on occassion for sport, and I was advising others (especially Mr. Rogue) to stop feeding the troll.

At this juncture, neither have offered a simple:

"By jove, that is a fine coincidence worthy of our amusement that Mr. Rogue -- in a Freudian manner -- would regularly get it on with another straw man peddler "A.Wright" having overlapping initials and last name as Mr. Rogue's dear old mum. But coincidence is all it is, I'm afraid. I am not he, neither is he I. Sorry, old chap. Tally hoe."

Mr. Adam Ruff assesses:

So, in conclusion, from my perspective you Senior are the one acting improperly.

Maybe in light of the evidence and how its validity can affect the very carousel that you wish to start with "A.Wright", you'll reconsider this hasty judgment against me. I just saved you lots of time.

//


x325 hybridrogue1 : I wrote allegory

2012-10-28

2012-10-28


hybridrogue1
October 28, 2012 – 6:45 pm

>”The surprise was the middle initial and last name of the telephone subscriber: “A.Wright”. Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye.”~Señor
. . . . . . . . . . .

Yes my mom’s name is, Ruth A. Wright. So even in ‘thickining’ your ‘thin’, you have a wide canyon of assumption you jump over.

“And their tongues are full of heartless tales that drain on you..”~Beck

I have used these three monikers on the web the entire time I have been posting; William Whitten, and Skywalker on Amazon forums. William Whitten on OpEd News, and Hybridrogue1 on COTO and everywhere else since 2001 or so. I have revealed I go by Willy Whitten as a professional sculptor, designer and special effects artist for cinema.

What you see is what you get. I am innocent, I am not A. Wright.

I may be more or less right in my assessment of data and facts, but I am sincere. I am not engaging in spurious argumentation. I can certainly be provoked to aggravation however.

Bridges quotes me thus:
“I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria.”

To which he replies:
” I hereby state that I have no suicidal inclinations. So, if something of this “he got suicided” nature actually happens, well…”

I would think it obvious that what I wrote as quoted is allegory, that I am saying that in his hysteria and paranoia Bridges is on the verge of ‘suiciding’ his own reputation, that by continuing with this attempt to frame me, he is outing himself as unstable. And to make the statement that he has no “suicidal inclinations” is, I think an indicator of just how paranoid he is. To consider my words a threat is preposterous enough, but then he goes on to advise the members of COTO not to mistake my words as orders for an assassination! Just punking shithouse rat crazy!!

Now I have had enough of all of this. I do not mean Señor El Once any harm. I do however, want him to cease and desist with this lunatic trip he is on. I want it to stop.

And if he thinks by this I mean that if I make argument to his commentary again that it is a green light to start in on this shit again he is mistaken. I will not be intimidated by his hooting gibberish, I will not “STFU”, nor take any of his misplaced advice on how to compose or conduct myself in my commentary.

\\][//

2012-10-28
hybridrogue1
October 28, 2012 – 7:53 pm

Unfortunately Maxiwhine never entered COTO from the Home page where the advice is given that it is a “frank and explicit program”. At COTO we call a spade a spade, and a joker a joker.

And Anglo-Saxon is in common usage there.

He was warned by several commentators there that he was not welcome with his scurrilous ranting. Apparently his 950 word squall was the breaking point for the administrator. That, as well as a few comments answering it were removed at some point.

As far as any communication breakdown, I want to point out that I offered the URL to the SEPTEMBER MORN thread on COTO to the entire forum as it had to do with the movie we had discussed on an earlier thread here. It certainly wasn’t an invitation for Senor to bounce his party-head over there to churn the spleen.

As far as this blog is concerned, I do hope that this will be the last of this thing. I see no profit in walking this dog any further.

\\][//

2012-10-28

A.Wright
October 28, 2012 – 8:36 pm

@Ruffadam
I got the impression that since you resorted to derogatory remarks and personal insult that you are not interested in rational debate.


2012-10-28

hybridrogue1
October 28, 2012 – 9:07 pm

“Rational debate” you say Wright??

Good grief!!!

I swear, this is a frigging three ring circus!

When have you ever participated in a rational debate? We have all been here for every one of your scewball postings. You always come up with this same excuse.
That is because you have no rational debate. This is so utterly obvious.

Enough!

\\][//


x326 Señor El Once : chumming the waters

2012-10-28

Dear Mr. Rogue,

Your original quote:

I do believe that karma will work its method on this cretin. He will end up tossing himself off his high bridge in his dizzy hysteria.

I will accept your version that this was intended as "allegory," but it was far from obvious and I want to be damn sure. Meanwhile, you misconstrue my words to your co-horts:

... he goes on to advise the members of COTO not to mistake my words as orders for an assassination!

My concern was not for a physical assassination but to a very real "character assassination" that could have very serious googling-lingering effects to me, if your demands were heeded (2012-10-27):

I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is. ... So who is Maxwell Smartass? That is the prime question at this stage, he is clearly an underhanded slimeball, more interested in creating his “legend” than seeking the truth.

And in fact, this concern was clear in the posting you responded to, was deleted from COTO, but remains on T&S:

Demonstrate some ethics and morality in the pursuit of the information that you seek. Contact me off-list with your request, and maybe I might just grant you a login to the kingdom or a FaceBook name to avoid the real damage on a real person that you seem intent on inflicting, either at your own hand or your own command, should your co-horts here "misunderstand" and do the dirty deed for you "by accident."

On further review, maybe the reference to a very modern fear of "google-lingering artifacts" and your churning into "character assassination" wasn't clear in those exact words, but were repeated many times in our emails, postings, and repositories where I save my work.

The above references Mr. Rogue's 6:45 pm "trip," while below references his 7:53 pm "trip," where Mr. Rogue talks about the front page rules to COTO.

At COTO we call a spade a spade, and a joker a joker.

But don't call a sock-puppet a sock-puppet. He doesn't mention the two COTO rules of Engagement:

1. Personal attacks are not allowed, and will be deleted.
2. Hate speech as defined in the WordPress TOS is not allowed, and will be deleted.

It pretty clearly documented that Mr. Rogue laid thick his personal attacks before I entered and continued throughout my tenure. As for the "hate speech," Mr. Rogue was walking a fine line with his charge: "I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is." And then we have the welcome mat:

He was warned by several commentators there that he was not welcome with his scurrilous ranting.

Nice spin, Mr. Rogue. You had those "several commentators" so saluting the hallowed ground of your vapor legacy & legend, they had their assessments in place and were gunning for me before I could say "Good Morning." They were salivating so heavily at what you drop, one could almost bet that none of them followed your back-links to our discussions in context in order to draw their own opinions.

Here's another great spin:

I offered the URL to the SEPTEMBER MORN thread on COTO to the entire forum as it had to do with the movie we had discussed on an earlier thread here. It certainly wasn’t an invitation for Senor to bounce his party-head over there to churn the spleen.

Uh, huh. Riiii-ight! I suggest that you go to the article and do a Ctrl+F with things like "Señor" or "Max" to see examples of the "non-invitation" and were all well before any meaningful "churning of my spleen." [Several other articles also have your "non-invitation".]

- 2012-10-21 at 12:18 am
- 2012-10-21 at 12:24 am
- 2012-10-21 at 10:22 am
- 2012-10-21 at 04:13 pm
- 2012-10-22 at 12:15 pm
- 2012-10-22 at 10:30 pm
- 2012-10-25 at 12:53 pm

As I said before, you were chumming the waters. And now you're pissed because you were taken down on your home court, to the extent that censureship was called into play.

Mr. Rogue states his case:

I will not be intimidated by his hooting gibberish, I will not “STFU”, nor take any of his misplaced advice on how to compose or conduct myself in my commentary.

Good for you. Now let's have you not-STFU about something meaningful, like the missing "Judy, Judy, Judy" and "Jeff, Jeff, Jeff" reviews that have good, bad, and ugly. And stay away from Mr. A.Wright, who -- if he's someone other than you -- probably won't miss not having to deal with your commentary and carousel cranking anyway. [Mr. Rogue deserves a "Razzie" or "Raspberry" (opposite of "Oscar") for his poorly acted 9:07 pm engagement of Mr. A.Wright.]

Final point. Mr. Rogue boasts:

I have used these three monikers on the web the entire time I have been posting; William Whitten, and Skywalker on Amazon forums. William Whitten on OpEd News, and Hybridrogue1 on COTO and everywhere else since 2001 or so.

Among the names he'll call me, he can add "incompetent," because my google-spying didn't find his online participation go back any where near that far. It gets very thin, very fast. {Caveat: Mr. Whitten had over 4,000 comments on OpEd News but only goes back to 2009. On the one hand, it doesn't make his T&S posting frequency so out of character. On the other hand, a gap still exists beteen 9/11/2001 and 2009.}

The onus, however, shouldn't be on me, particularly if what he was writing was really so brilliant and worthy of preservation. Mr. Rogue has a WordPress blog. He ought to hunt down his own "brilliant works" and re-publish them in a venue, like his blog, that he controls and is less likely to be a memory hole.

Until that time, I'll stick to my present impressions and chalk this up to being an empty boast.

//


x327 hybridrogue1 : you are not welcome at COTO

2012-10-28

hybridrogue1
October 28, 2012 – 3:10 pm

Paranoia strikes deep…

\\][// @ 3 Words


hybridrogue1
October 28, 2012 – 9:55 pm

So now Señor, we shall add VANDAL to your MO and modus operendi.

You we given the message in very certain terms that you are not welcome at COTO.

You persistence is a challenge to our prerogative. It matters not how little you might say, or how brief your message, the point is that we do not want your ragmop smearing our pages.
We have no duty whatsoever to amplify your voice.

I do get this straight, we are not asking you to stay out, we are demanding that you stay out.

\\][//


x329 Señor El Once : "Go Vandals!"

2012-10-29

So now Señor, we shall add VANDAL to your MO and modus operendi.

I have relatives who attended the University of Idaho, "Go Vandals!"

And we shall add CENSURE and BANISHMENT to your MO and modus operendi.

"Lord, Make my enemies ridiculous." ~Voltaire

Were I Voltaire, such a wish would be embodied by Mr. Rogue. Too funny!

Mr. Rogue "chummed the waters" of his beloved CotoCrew to bait me to come there. And when I did, inside of four postings of substance, his whole tiny band of CotoCrewCuts (~6 aliases) is throwing in the towel and censuring posts:

"Here’s your hat and coat, don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out. We respect the Rogue'ster over here and cover each other's 6's, you’re a bogy and in hostile territory so run along." ~veritable1

"Yea, indeed. Run along. We don’t abide anyone coming here to slander our friends." ~jerseyg

"I want to know WHO this motherfucker really is." ~hybridrogue1

"Just get the fuck out and don't come back, we are most tired of your continuing on with your ‘clarification’ as to what a sick-sack’o'shit you really are." ~hybridrogue1 [Posting from 2012-10-27 and removed 2012-10-28.]

3x "You were given the message in very certain terms that you are not welcome at COTO. ... Do get this straight, we are not asking you to stay out, we are demanding that you stay out." ~hybridrogue1 2012-10-28



I shall wear your banishment as a badge of honor! Woo-hoo!

You persistence is a challenge to our prerogative.

El-oh-el! On the fingers of my two hands I can count all of my CotoCrew postings (from 10/21 to 10/28) including those deleted and three test posts, and I will still have a middle finger or two to wag at Mr. Rogue. In the same time frame as my "persistence," Mr. Rogue had 47 postings not including any that were deleted or the 9 before my activities began.

My 4 posts (of substance) versus 56+ by Mr. Rogue.

I think the real challenge is that CotoCrew has milktoast content and mundane self-congratulatory "me-too" discussions dominated by Mr. Rogue. In other words, their content is hardly worth following. So, in order to spice up the mix, enter the sock-puppet and the challenges that this "exclusive or special right, power, or privilege" generates.

You're over the target when you start getting flak.

Applies to neu nookiedoo and probably Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, as well.

A tiny sliver of doubt exists that "A.Wright" isn't Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, which is why I first wrote about "a coincidence that surprised me." But the totality of Mr. Rogue's reaction (some of it inappropriate) flags the coincidence as not being such. Remember, it included a three-front engagement, the censure of a posting [that did not merit such], and now the banishing of a voice. Geesh.

For future reference, Mr. Rogue would have been far more effective in simply writing:

True, my mother's name is "{... edit ...} A. Wright," but the "A.Wright" alias is not my sock-puppet.

And then he should have... S-T-F-U !!!

Nope, Mr. Rogue busies himself by posting things called "THE GRAND STALL", things that imply that I'm "A.Wright" or "Albury Smith", things, things, things on three different fronts. He had so many postings, I couldn't keep up and kept interrupting my authoring of a single posting to deal with the latest volley of non-denial distractions.

Your hysteria has reached a climax now, one I am certain you will not recover from. I don’t have to do anything but watch now, you have sealed your own fate.


x331 Señor El Once : autodidact-inspired stubborness

2012-10-29

{Not posted to any forum}

You know what, Mr. Rogue? If there be any truth to your assessment of me, why do you continue to engage me?

I haven't concluded anything about you except that if your history truly included "autodidact polymath" and "artistic genius" phases, it explains your stubbornness today.

Ain't nobody can teach you nothin', least of all a non-genius lesser mortal who you think is:

- really nuts.
- a tacky tar-baby
- a Beancounter
- a LIAR
- a pretender
- a chameleon
- the more expert and subtle agent
- the covert agent
- crackpot
- a real fuckin' asshole
- etc.

I expect that I keep misinterpreting your "industrial-strength" autodidact-inspired stubborness against objectively mining nuggets of truth from disinformation sources as traits of an agent, because to my humble reasoning, admitting to the validity of single nuggets of truth opens the door for more and soon the drawn line of the "no-nookie" agenda for the agent is overrun. Kind of like how the govt can't admit to any of the flaws in its story (e.g., named hijackers alive-and-well, passports surviving crash, DNA surviving fires that "vaporized" airplanes, etc.), else the whole house of cards starts to fall.

Ah, yes, an agent probably wouldn't use part of his mum's name for a sock-puppet or give out her address and telephone number to receive a package.

So, I guess I really should be looking for another trait to explain your intractability to seeing that which high school math & science disprove in reasonable measure.


x333 Señor El Once : the gravest danger

2012-10-30

Mr. Rogue writes:

I have posited that the gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is a disinformation campaign which I have identified as a New Wave 9/11 Movement.

I disagree. The gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is not the disinformation campaign itself, but the "all-or-nothing" extreme approaches to handling it that would lump all aspects of it together in over simplified piles for easier dismissal (or acceptance): the disinformation, as well as the valid nuggets of truth that were required for the disinfo campaign to be believable. Case in point, Mr. Rogue writes:

Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled and put into question by newer shinier more 'exciting' models. I have identified these products as; 'Video-Fakery' – 'No-Planes' – 'Holograms' – 'Dew' – 'Nukes' and the new 'Reassessment of the Pentagon'.

Directed energy weapons (DEW) is a very broad category, and by the very definition of the three words in its acronym would include shaped-charges from conventional and exotic chemical explosives and incendiaries. Nuclear devices are an equally broad category with significant overlap with DEW. I won't belabor how I think Mr. Rogue is sweeping them together with "No-Planes" and Holograms so they can be swept away from deeper consideration.

Having only worked on the PR marketing side of things and not on the engineering side of things, Mr. Rogue brushes aside that often "newer shinier more 'exciting' models" are required, because the previous models had technical flaws (e.g., no-worky) that had astute customers returning them for a refund or not buying them.

In his ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology" (2009-03-23), Mr. Rogue still has some blind-spots. The major blind-spots are in the area of physics & math, but compounding this is his reluctance to admit what were elements of the "Old Wave 9/11 Movement" to blare PR disinformation, "a co-opting of the original movement."

Mr. Rogue and I can probably readily agree: [1] the Bush Administration, the media, EPA, NIST, FEMA, 9/11 Commission, etc. conspired to keep and slow-walk the truth of 9/11 from public view in the early years, and [2] NPT and 9/11 holograms are probably the poster-children of such meddling with our understanding in more recent times.

Where Mr. Rogue and I disagree is in the roles and influence of Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood. Mr. Rogue wants to dismiss everything from Dr. Wood as being disinformation without deeper inspection, while at the same time accepting everything from Dr. Jones as being beyond reproach without deeper inspection, as is evident by Mr. Rogue's statements:

Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled... We see ... with the establishment of smoking gun evidence of explosive materials used at WTC; wherein as soon as the work of Jones and Harrit is reaching fruition, suddenly stepping forward is the blaring PR to counter it with DEW and Nukes.

DEW and nukes stepping forward is not sudden. What might be sudden, however, is the destruction of the old framing that limits understanding of the breadth of the capabilities of each.

Moreover, it isn't an issue that evidence at the WTC of explosive materials is a smoking gun. By all means, take that to court for the trial. The issue is accountability of all the evidence.

If "neu nookiedoo" [neutron nuclear directed energy weapons] is being promoted [mostly by me, in isolation, on my lunch hour] as the "newer shinier more 'exciting' models" for the WTC destruction, it is because of the glaring technical flaws (e.g., no-worky) of those explosive materials to account for all of the evidence [best collected in Dr. Wood's book] in a reasonable manner. Things that Dr. Jones nano-thermitic energetic materials can't easily explain:

- Pulverization of content (with or without mixing with other explosives): quantities are massive.
- Duration of under-rubble hot-spots: quantities of energetic materials that were "unspent from initial pulverization" becomes obscenely massive; such massive quanties were not found.
- "Selective" vehicle damage along West Broadway and in car park.
- The "depth" of damage to the Banker's Trust building, causing them to raze it shortly after fixing the fascade damage.
- Correlated basic elements in the dust samples suggesting source mechanisms.
- Sudden onset of various and multiple cancers in first responder ailments.
...

Furthermore, the works of Dr. Jones into tritium levels and his no-nukes conclusions have a couple of glaring flaws, but sufficient in terms of PR tactics to steer us away from nuclear contemplation. Similarly, Dr. Wood's efforts into DEW -- valid consideration -- leads us astray by "free-energy from space" and "Hutchison effects" while down-playing hot-spots and ignoring potential nuclear sources, like neutron bombs, enhanced radiation weapons (ERW), and modern versions of "Project Excalibur meets Davey Crocket nukes." Both have issue; both have nuggets of truth.

Mr. Rogue writes:

Of course these PR tactics are well worn in all other areas of our lives, it seems only natural to expect the same to be applied to the 9/11 Truth movement. Subversion from within is such a tried and true technique of manipulation.

Exactly. And we should not be adverse to looking into both Dr. Wood and Dr. Jones for their involvement in the same PR tactics to steer the movement. More importantly than that, we need to be mining their works for nuggets of truth that we re-fine and re-purpose. We shouldn't be sweeping things into dismissive piles.

Mr. Rogue writes;

I am not suggesting that anything be rejected out of hand, I am merely advising to be wary and to make certain that all the facts add up as advertised for these products. In other words be sure to read the fine print.

Agreed. But to be clear, just as Mr. Rogue "identified these products 'Video-Fakery' – 'No-Planes' – 'Holograms' – 'Dew' – 'Nukes'" as part of the "New Wave 9/11 Movement", I identify "super-duper nano-thermite, sol gel, thermaberic," etc. also as the previous release's "newer shinier more 'exciting' models" that require both the fine print to be read and the numbers run before placing a bet with your life-savings.

//


x334 Señor El Once : smell wafting up

2012-10-30

This is where Mr. Rogue comes across as being a team rather than an individual. He writes, "I will speak to only one of Señor’s comments... and then not only writes to more than one point, but then a scant 23 minutes later puts up another posting. He really should learn to "think twice before writing & posting once."

I stand by my dual assertion (A) that Mr. Rogue has never worked on the engineering side of things, where math is indispensible and Mr. Rogue regularly comes up short, and (B) that the motivation for newer versions of things is often based on fixing flaws in the previous version. [It is the marketing pukes who see the opportunity of a new bug-fixing product to put fancy packaging and a new logo on it.]

If Mr. Rogue was really more "able in the theoretical and conceptual side of these subjects," he would not be squishing neu nookiedoo into the treads of his black boots to prevent rational discussion thereof.

Moreover, if he was really so up on the "theoretical and conceptual side of these subjects" AND could do the math, he would KNOW from having run the numbers that ALL COMBINATIONS of chemical explosives & incendiaries CANNOT account for the observed pulverization AND the duration of under-rubble hot-spots, due to the massively ginormous quantities that would have had to have been present & unspent in the aftermath, and were NOT found in the pile in such quantities elsewhere. Dr. Jones & Mr. Ryan imply that pockets of such can account for six spikes in the rubble temperature over so many weeks, but Dr. Jones flat out stated one month ago: "Something maintained those high temperatures (not just NT)."

Mr. Rogue has no explanation for that "something." And the smell wafting up from the soles of Mr. Rogue's boots where neu nookiedoo oozes out? Neutron nuclear DEW suggests fracticide between the multiple ERW devices, such that several of them did not reach their full nuclear neutron-emission yield and were left fizzling in the pile.

As I have pointed out often before, applying mathematical formula to false assumptions will lead to false answers. I see a lot of irrational propositions coming from Señor, and have made argumentation against them. It is not for Señor to judge the success or failure of those arguments with the hand-wave of asserting my being “scientifically challenged”.

Mr. Rogue should point out "the false assumptions" and "the irrational propositions" with exact quotes and links, because otherwise these assertions "with the hand-wave" are just tactics in Mr. Rogue's disinformation game on which he has been called before many times. (A recent example is towards the end of: Dancing to Mr. Rogue's "No-Nookiedoo Burlesque" 2012-10-10)

I see it as perfectly valid to frame Wood as a PR agent.
Señor continues to contend that Jones is in the same position, and while proofs can be made as to Wood’s unreliability the same cannot be said for Jones.

Not true, as Mr. Rogue "with the hand-wave" ignores the many times issues with Dr. Jones' work were brought up, such as at the dancing link already provided.

By all means, frame Dr. Wood as a PR agent, because her very expensive and colorful book with lots of pictures is just that; it is the evidence and nuggets of truth within that are important. But recognize also where Dr. Jones was the PR agent in his Tritium no-nukes paper as well as in his promotion of nano-thermite, where he let the "scientifically challenged yeoman of the 9/11 Truth Movement" [that includes Mr. Rogue] extrapolate it to explain features that it cannot reasonably do.

Señor is simply wrong in saying that Chemical Explosives cannot account for every one of these points. ... I have spoken to every one of these issues.

Mr. Rogue should provide the links and exact quotes to where he spoke to those issues.

When he comes back, I will then point out the very limited framing that he puts it in. The two phrases within just the first two bullet points that trip up Mr. Rogue are "quantities are massive" and "quantities become obscenely massive." Mr. Rogue has never addressed this with respect to Occam Razor logistics in the few pre-9/11 holidays that the bomb-sniffing dogs took, or to what was found (or not) in the pile. To account for the duration of hot-spots, the key point is that this represents unspent materials that were over and WAY above what would have been required for pulverization; such quantities of unspent materials simply were NOT found elsewhere in the pile as would be expected if they were either (A) the primary destructive mechanism or (B) the source for maintaining the high temperatures of the hot-spots. And if only (A), then what was the source for (B)? Mr. Rogue is silent "with the hand-wave."

The other bullet points that Mr. Rogue thinks he addressed? 9/11 Tetris.

9/11 Tetris. The various pieces of evidence come down, and you must orient them to allow for the fewest gaps in the resulting theory.

{Mr. Rogue} makes light of what could or could not cause a sudden increase in cancerous ailments in 9/11 1st responders. He wants to take off the table that radiation exposure was one of the toxic elements that accelerated the onset of cancer.

Despite the fact that the 9/11 Tetris blocks can be oriented and stacked with fewer and tighter gaps into the shape of "nookiedoo" as Agent Rogue has affectionately nick-named "nuclear directed energy weapons (DEW)" in his Public Relations tour, it becomes rather funny looking at gaps in his theories... gaps with tritium staring out, gaps large enough to hold a coil over 600,000 miles long of imaginary garden hose, gaps that are illogical and unreasonable from the perspective of a special operations having deep pockets and access to every single nookie-and-crany in the military arsenals of the world.


Mr. Rogue again "with the hand-wave":

And I am not going to reiterate on this thread all of the previous arguments made.

Fine, then Mr. Rogue should post the relevant quotes and the links.

As I have said time and again, hijacking every thread that comes along and attempting to turn it into a discussion on Señor’s nookiedoo trip is part and parcel of what I mean by these New Wave 9/11 theories being in the main a distraction and misdirection from all other issues. We see it happening before our eyes. What judgment do we put to that?

Oh, let me get this straight.

It is okay for Mr. Rogue to "hijack every thread that comes along" with his PR hypnotic statements regarding what is and is not viable; it is okay for him bring up DEW and Nukes in a malframed light and give them a back-handed slap while dressing them in the same Halloween costumes as 9/11 Holograms, NPT, and Video fakery.

But it is NOT okay for me to point out with substantiation where his ability to "speak competently to the engineering and physics aspects" is proven wanting, and where neu nookiedoo should not be taken from the table by his PR disinfo tricks... from his “>35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology” (2009-03-23).

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Mr. Adam Ruff wasn't all that impressed with the rabbit-hole examples I provided of Mr. Rogue operating dishonestly. But if anything reflects his true integrity and (not) being a man of his words, than this quote from 2012-09-26 maybe ought to do it:

You're such a fuckin' idiot {Señor El Once}, but you're right about one thing; I don't have to deal with you on T&S... I am seriously finished with you asshole.



Mr. Rogue should put on his A.Wright sock-puppet, because it is almost Halloween and Mr. Rogue is in need of a whipping boy to help re-establish his legend.

//


x335 Señor El Once : he should prove it

2012-10-31

The conversation goes like this.

Mr. Rogue: "Señor is simply wrong in saying that Chemical Explosives cannot account for every one of these points. … I have spoken to every one of these issues."

Señor El Once: "Mr. Rogue should provide the links and exact quotes to where he spoke to those issues."

Mr. Rogue: "No Señor should stop trying to force this nookiedoo bullshit down our throats on every single thread that comes up."

It is an issue of integrity.

If Mr. Rogue is going to say that I'm wrong, he should prove it.

If Mr. Rogue is going to say that he's spoken to some theme, he should prove it.

If Mr. Rogue is going to say (or imply) that I have "false assumptions" and "irrational propositions", he should prove it.

If Mr. Rogue is going to label as "bullshit" the prospect that 9/11 was nuclear, he should prove it.

And as long as we are re-capping the conversation in this thread, let us not forget how the renewed discussion of "neu nookiedoo" got started. Mr. Rogue begins his "New Wave 9/11" thesis yesterday (October 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM) with the statements:

I have posited that the gravest danger to the truth of 9/11 is a disinformation campaign which I have identified as a New Wave 9/11 Movement. It is as I see it, a co-opting of the original movement by the same type of “new fad” advertising we see in the “marketplace of ideas” as products. Whatever truths that have been established are now to be muddled and put into question by newer shinier more ‘exciting’ models. I have identified these products as; ‘Video-Fakery’ – ‘No-Planes’ – ‘Holograms’ – ‘Dew’ – ‘Nukes’ and the new ‘Reassessment of the Pentagon’

Mr. Rogue clearly brought up DEW and Nukes, and clearly tries to do a "a guilt by association" smear of them. Who is trying to "force this {no-nookie} bullshit down our throats" on many threads? Mr. Rogue.

I will have the integrity to embrace my legend as a "crackpot" [if indeed this is how I'm assessed], but Mr. Rogue's lack of proof to the above and his "hand-wavey weasel-words" -- very much fitting to his legacy and legend -- demonstrates the level of his integrity. Enough said.


x336 Señor El Once : bringing in the dog and putting out the cat AGAIN

2012-10-31

See the closing to my October 26, 2012 – 5:03 pm posting that Mr. Rogue claims "is where this whole thing started"? It says:

bringing in the dog and putting out the cat

Where does this come from?

"Innocent" old Mr. Rogue complains that "he didn't instigate this crap." Yet on his home COTO turf, he was chumming the waters to bait me to make an appearance. Note the time stamps.

- October 21, 2012 at 12:18 am
- October 21, 2012 at 10:22 am
- October 21, 2012 at 4:13 pm
...

After I make my appearance and before he bans me (and deletes a posting of mine and several others), he specifically requests October 26, 2012 at 4:08 pm the posting on T&S (that I delivered at October 26, 2012 at 5:03 pm):

WTF Maxiloon? ... If you’re bored go count the “slanders” I dished out on T&S, take your time to find each and every one, time stamp and dated in chronological order. If that’s not enough for you then an addendum of the same material in alphabetical order might be handy.

Then at the first opportunity you can spring it on me as a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog.

And when you finish doing that, bring in the dog and put out the cat...

The sock-puppet sucker-punch? Sheee-et! I originally said: "Just a coincidence with no explanation needed. Aye."

Ah, but look what the guilty conscious did reap! Team Rogue in action doing damage control... ALL OVER THE PLACE! Three fronts. Even involved censure and banishment. Woo-hoo!

So Mr. Rogue asked for "a 2000 word defamation tome on our favorite 9/11 blog", and I delivered, albeit short a few words. Still, the sock-puppet charge didn't have to go anywhere. And the sock-puppet actually stalled. And the sock-puppet was no longer the topic of the discussion. And then what does the "non-instigator" Mr. Rogue instigate?

I had no choice but to smack that leering mask off your face to illustrate what a screwball was behind it.

According to Mr. Rogue, he had no choice but to take a swipe at neu nookiedoo, which re-initialized the discussion. And now he tries to pawn it off on me. Mr. Rogue's level of integrity is falling.

If Mr. Rogue finds me "such an insufferable bore," he already knows what he has to do.

// bringing in the dog and putting out the cat AGAIN


x337 hybridrogue1 : You are a dung beetle Maxiwhine

2012-10-31

Hybridrogue1 on T&S October 31, 2012 – 8:33 pm
hybridrogue1 on COTO November 1, 2012 at 10:53 am

“If Mr. Rogue finds me “such an insufferable bore,” he already knows what he has to do.”~the scarab

Yes, I know the code; “ignore” you, in other words “shut the fuck up”.

You are a dung beetle Maxiwhine, rolling little balls of shit one way and the other throughout the web.

You are spam master flash, turning into a troll with this relentless harassment.

It has turned from aggravation to comedy and entertainment, let’s have some more of your Cimmerian spew.

Let’s hear you dribble that bouncing party-head some more.
Hell, bring on the donkey and the dancing chihuahua! Crank up that rickety calliope one more time for us…clone yourself and make a parade of little pink oinkers.

It could be the best selling show!

\\][//


x339 Señor El Once : PWNing Mr. Rogue on his two home courts

2012-11-01

{Not posted to a forum}
I wrote that it was an issue of integrity. I wrote:

- If Mr. Rogue is going to say that I’m wrong, ...
- If Mr. Rogue is going to say that he’s spoken to some theme, ...
- If Mr. Rogue is going to say (or imply) that I have “false assumptions” and “irrational propositions”, ...
- If Mr. Rogue is going to label as "bullshit" the prospect that 9/11 was nuclear, ...

Then he should prove it.


How does Mr. Rogue prove it? By cleverly calling me:

- an insufferable bore
- the scarab
- a dung beetle
- Maxiwhine
- spam master flash
- turning into a troll
- bouncing party-head
- hysteria and paranoia
- unstable
- hooting gibberish
- slaphappy keyboard tango blast
- Maxiblitz
- craze glazed eyes
- sticky tacky tar-baby
- vigilante
- vandal
- crank
- crackpot
- Cimmerian spew
- aggravation
- comedy
- entertainment
- a fuckin' idiot
- asshole
- just a bore
- beancounter
- ...


Back to the integrity question, who is "rolling little balls of shit one way and the other throughout this thread"?

The title of "spam master flash" that Mr. Rogue wants to bestow upon Señor El Once for a mere 11 comments (10.9% of the ~101 total so far in this thread) rightfully belongs to Mr. Rogue himself for his 44 comments (43.5%). This is before considering whether or not A.Wright's 7 comments (6.9%) are Mr. Rogue's sock-puppet, as well.

Mr. Rogue has two home courts.

One is http://cotocrew.wordpress.com, where Mr. Rogue was PWNed pretty badly by me within four entries without me uttering a single insult similar to Mr. Rogue's clever list above. So bad it was, Mr. Rogue had to call for my censure and banishment. [Here's the censured posting (2012-10-27).]

Mr. Rogue's second home court is in the realm of insults, ad hominem, and flame wars. These, my online persona religiously tries to avoid not just as a matter of taste or style, but as a matter of protection (to truth) and to testify to the seriousness of my neu nookiedoo endeavors. And as this posting demonstrates, it succeeded again in PWNing Mr. Rogue on his second home court while using his own words.

+++ INTERRUPTION Begin

A WordPress subscription notified me of the following message from Mr. Rogue on COTOcrew (2012-11-01) that gives pause for contemplation.

What Maximanikin isn;t getting is that we are not discussing his nookiedoo bullshit... we are discussing his effort to FORCE ME into discussing his nookiedoo bullshit. We HAVE discussed it as far as I am willing to take it with this whiny-shit diaper-dumper.


+++ INTERRUPTION End

[Note: I was practically finished when the interruption came. Oh, well... My apologies.]

If we give any credence to warnings that the govt was going to infiltrate all online venues to help steer the public's perceptions, what form would that infiltration take? Oh how easy it was to peg Albury Smith and A.Wright as agents! But when the participating audience clearly sees through their endeavors and when the message still needs to be controlled, what further form would that take?

Yes, I am guilty of casting "agency affiliations" onto Mr. Rogue, but they are not without some basis, some of which is on display above before the interruption. We have his "hand-wavey assertions of no-nookie." We have his insult list above instead of the quotes and links to prove his assertions...

Ooops, and now we have the crafty interruption, which tries to change the field of debate from "neu nookiedoo" to "efforts to force Mr. Rogue into discussing neu nookiedoo." To be sure, those efforts include the purchase of a gift copy of Dr. Wood's textbook for Mr. Rogue as well as links to Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB].

Shame on me for thinking that if I wanted assistance in finding the good, the bad, and the ugly from various sources so that I could be set straight in my search for truth, it would aid the discussion if I got debate participants on the same page, literally... To this end, I even paid for Mr. Rogue's copy with these conditions:

- You will give Dr. Wood's textbook an objective and thorough [cover-to-cover] reading.
- You will share your good, bad, and ugly reviews. If the "good" is missing, I clobber you with your own copy.
- If pressed in debate (e.g., on Truth & Shadows), the good, bad, and ugly reviews will extend down to the chapter level. Again, if the good is missing, I clobber you.
- If the book is found worthy, you are to pay-it-forward (or loan/give your copy) to someone else influential in the 9/11 discussion (or leadership).
- If the book is found totally unworthy at the end of your reading, then you should probably give it to someone who will appreciate it.


Mr. Rogue wrote:

I accept your conditions with the caveat that I am not holding off posting until I receive the book. When I do receive the book, I will attend to it right away as you ask.

His caveat to the conditions should have been a red flag. If the discussion is X and if book Y is instrumental in understanding X, then why would a participant be so eager to continue debating [heavily, as it turned out] from the position of ignorance? Doesn't make sense. Wouldn't prudence tell a rational and sincere person to step back, because book Y might just change everything?

Was the second sentence a lie? "Right away" is now over four months away. As we can probably deduce, Mr. Rogue never had any intention of "getting on the same page" [as the starting point for discussion]. He was stalling for time and has been ever since.

Ah, yes. The gift that keeps on giving!!!

The gift in question is Dr. Wood's textbook. It gives many nuggets of truth. It gives much evidence that must be addressed. It gives also disinformation. It gives Mr. Rogue regularly (& figuratively) bloody noses. It gave me without asking Mr. Rogue's mum's telephone number, and consequently a heavy suspicion into an A.Wright sock-puppet.

The gift is NOT the 9/11 gospel! The problem is that anyone objectively reviewing the evidence collected therein is struck by the good despite the bad and ugly. The nuggets of truth scream to be addressed by whatever theory-du-jour is being promoted. These, combined with Jeff Prager's Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], become pretty damning of neu nookiedoo.

When crafty Mr. Rogue tries to brush these off, has he objectively reviewed these sources cover-to-cover? No. Has authored pieces (to the chapter level) to prove that he has? No. Does he apply original thought in identifying "the good, the bad, and the ugly?" No. Does he avoid the good when he tries to tackle the bad and ugly with his hand-waves? Yes, and this is a major flag. Does he rely almost exclusively on sources within the 9/11TM who themselves have work with questionable components? Yes (and so do I, but...) Does he admit to the troublesome issues in the work he tries to hold up? No, and this is major flag. He avoided the specifics by re-framing it as "a crusade to attack and belittle" the work's author, and ironically cranks up "a crusade to attack and belittle" the critic of the author's work. And now he avoids it by saying "it isn't about neu nookiedoo, it's about efforts to get me to discuss neu nookiedoo."

"By their fruits, ye shall know them."


I'll cut Mr. Rogue off at the pass. Assume for a moment that I'm the infiltrator as I try to raise awareness and viability of "neu nookiedoo". To what end? If I am successful in my "disinfo", what gains are to be had by the PTB and the govt when more people take seriously the message that "we nuked ourselves on 9/11?" And geez, I've said all along that with properly applied science to all of the 9/11 evidence, I could easily be duped into believing something else and will henceforth issue a heartfelt & public apology for having led others astray.

I'm the "crackpot." I've been duped in the past by premises I've had to recant: the extent of video fakery, no-planes at the WTC, milli-nukes, space-based DEW, spire-based DEW, super-duper nano-thermite, etc. Whereas I would love to recant neu nookiedoo, not only has the no-nookie argumentation been weak, but the alternative chemical/exotic explosives/incendiaries with which they want to fill the explanation void also has to fill an imaginary garden hose that is hundreds (of thousands) miles long and ain't very Occam Razor from a logistics perspective.


And if readers think about the nuking of America in terms of PR and what PR should be deployed to shut down even rational discussion thereof... Doh! *Palm smacking forehead*

Mr. Rogue:

- an "Autodidact Polymath"

- "worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention." (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm)

- ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and his doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in the field of intelligence analysis, and forensic history, the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation, mass psychology, and epistemology." (2009-03-23)

- The pincer-ish debates with others with a reputation.

- "I certainly WILL address any and all errors, misconceptions, slanders, and any other issues that appear on these pages concerning Señor the duped and useful idiot." (2012-10-19)


Truth be told, I could rather quickly change my mind on the matter of Mr. Rogue's agenthood that will result in a heartfelt & public apology to Mr. Rogue, providing of course that the basis for my suspicions undergoes a shift.

Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity." ~Marshall McLuhan


// only 1,691 Words


x340 hybridrogue1 : you crazy son of a bitch

2012-11-04

{This posting refers to the "God's Protection" (2012-10-22) posting that I thought ended up in the ether, because they weren't being posted live on the site. This signifies that it was both intercepted and censured.}

New Comment on COALITION OF THE OBVIOUS

hybridrogue1 commented on "SCRAGGED AGAIN" by Hybrid Rogue.

in response to Señor El Once //:

{4th attempt, although the 3 others were in other threads.} To the esteemed participants of COTO, It appears my PR advance man (aka Mr. Rogue) has been busy framing me and conditioning you all what to expect. The following are his words with my comments in {curly braces} unless noted otherwise. – a tacky tar-baby [...]

Go esteem yourself a bright lobster red you crazy son of a bitch. \\][//


x341 hybridrogue1 : Interception, censure, edit, publish, libel

2012-11-04


{2012-11-04 Clarification: This is an example of a comment that was intercepted, censured, edited (heavily), and then re-posted in a manner to be taken as my words. Libel in other words. The original posting is given above "God's Protection" (2012-10-22). It's publication was attempted four times. As far as I knew at the time, all four failed utterly. Within the last day or so, the admin saw fit to release and publish the first three postings attempts. Now they appear to come into the threads out of the blue with no context to what others posted in the meantime. El-Oh-El. Three were posted as I write them -- HTML and all. The fourth one should have been as the other three, not as is alledgedly below. El-Oh-El! This may have been a concession of the admin, or demonstrates Mr. Rogue's skill as an admin to allow this farce to be published as my words. El-Oh-El.}

{Update 2012-11-05: After posting my 2012-11-04 message later in the morning, the published examples of dishonestly quoting me as well as the "steaming red lobster" were removed.}

By: Señor El Once // on October 22, 2012 at 2:08 pm

{4th attempt, although the 3 others were in other threads.}

To the esteemed participants of COTO,

P.S. I plan on being a regular here.

// I’m a covert agent

By: hybridrogue1 on November 4, 2012 at 2:30 am

Go esteem yourself a bright lobster red you crazy son of a bitch.

\\][//


By: hybridrogue1 on November 4, 2012 at 7:38 pm
Señor, Your embers have grown cold, turned to gray ash. The slightest tremble will cause them to tumble, the weakest gust shall blow them asunder. And none will recall you ever were.

\\][//


x342 Señor El Once : Dishonesty flags results in CYA deletion

2012-11-04

{This was posted into the Coto Crew forum. I do not know if it ever became live, but after posting this, Mr. Rogue's 2012-11-04 dishonest postings were removed.}

Observe the following:
- Áttempt #1: October 22, 2012
- Áttempt #2: October 22, 2012
- Áttempt #3: 2012-10-22

All of these languished -- I don't know how long -- in the moderating queue. I didn't notice that they made it live until Mr. Rogue's November 4th message: "Go esteem yourself a bright lobster red you crazy son of a bitch.". They all end with:

P.S. I have zero plans on being a regular here.

// pretending that I’m a covert agent

The fourth attempt that was posted in this "Scragged" thread should have been nearly identical, right on down to the last lines. That it would be hacked down from its excessive length to just four lines, and with the last two lines being attributed to me NOT coming from me, because you edited and changed them (or had someone do that): these are grave indications of "operating dishonestly."

I spoke too soon with regards to my banishment on COTO. Your comment from 2012-10-28 must have been uttered from a position of having no authority: "we are not asking you to stay out, we are demanding that you stay out." Still, I would like to adhere to your request, providing you don't yank me back.

My only purpose in posting this was to point out the open deceit perpetuated by either you alone or you with the help of the admin. You attribute words and meaning to me under my login that I did not write. "Operating dishonestly." I let you have to yourself your own little dishonest corner of the internet. Be at peace.

P.S. I have still no plans on being a regular here.

// pretending that Mr. Rogue is a covert agent

No comments: