Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Proper Recourse to Handle Disinformation Sources

Hide All / Expand All


x164 Señor El Once : proper recourse to suspected disinformation

2013-08-28

Dear Mr. Ruff,

With your 2013-08-27 posting we have ample evidence now that you, along with Mr. Rogue, flunked sophomore English in high school, because (a) you seem to have no appreciation for reasoned writing, even if lengthy, (b) you get burned for the third time in the row by the misuse of over-generalizations (e.g., "everthing" and "all"), and (c)_ your ego is too big to see your ignorance in not recognizing when your argumentative position has been utterly destroyed. Case in point with emphasis added:

Once I identify intentionally misleading or deceptive information in someones work I reject all of their work because it simply cannot be trusted as accurate or truthful any longer.

There's that catchy phrase, "I reject all of their work" that is little different from your ignorant & misguided explanation in this thread "I reject everything from a particular researcher"... once, of course, intentionally misleading or deceptive information is discovered. "All" and "everything" leave no room for exceptions (e.g., those pesky gaddammit nuggets of truth that ain't nobody had no issues with).

It isn't a question about whether or not we can trust their work, because obviously, we can't.

But the proper recourse to suspected disinformation is to:

(1) Label and compartmentalize the instances of blatant disinformation.
(2) Rewind and review their past and present (and future) work with a jaundice eye to classify items as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.
(3) Research independently to solidify classifications.
(4) [Optional] Speculate into their disinformation motives and goals.

Finding instances of disinformation -- particularly in the realm of 9/11 that has active disinformationalists practicing in government agency reports, the mainstream media, and cyberspace -- does not absolve fair & objective researchers from reviewing their work anew for items of merit. You get no free passes that permit a rejection of a body of work, its substantiating evidence, and nuggets of truth out-of-hand; you've got to justify the rejection on each and every item individually.

Remember the 20th hijacker, KSM? He was tortured so badly that he admitted to terrorists actions that he couldn't have possibly been involved with. If Mr. Rogue were rendered to Guantanamo for a thrilling weekend, he'd come back admitting bestial relations with his birds. The threats don't even have to be physically against us, but perhaps hinted at a loved one, and many of us (me) would flip-flop 180 degrees on a debate position.

The crafty ones under such pressure would bow to the disinfo demands but maintain their integrity by inserting clues:

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

"Something maintained those hot-spots (not just NT)." ~Dr. Steven Jones

The relevance of the above quotes is that (1) we need to study the evidence presented in Dr. Wood's textbook and not get distracted (e.g., by Dr. Wood's explanations) from seeing what the evidence is telling us -- massive influx of energy; (2) we need to keep looking for that "something" that maintained those hot-spots.

Again a reflection on your poor grades in sophomore English, I love how you get burned a second time for an offense of the exact same nature. You write:

As to the rest of your insane ranting I am not going to spend my time reading it. Your reasoning is unreasonable and your logic is illogical.

Wait a minute! Rewind! Back-up!

How can you conclude that "[my] reasoning is unreasonable and [my] logic is illogical" when you admit in the preceding sentence that "[you are] not going to spend [your] time reading it"?

Really puts a fine point on who is being unreasonable and illogical when you have the ability to come to such conclusions about my statements without having read them. [Because you fall into sophomoric traps so easily, don't come back and try to say "actually I did read your work objectively and fairly and thus came to those conclusions" because I'll make hay out of you being a blowhard liar.]

This fits well into the theme of willful ignorance that you display. (Mockingly) "I reject the notion of looking for nuggets of truth, because there is no such thing. Either it is all true or everything is false; ain't no in between. And don't expect me to be pointing out sources of 9/11 information who meet my own ignorant criteria of being 100% truth, because... because... I'm too ignorant to know that there ain't such a thing."

Unlike the con-artists in the streets, who take their deck of cards with them and undoubtedly cleaned out Mr. Ruff many times over in his ignorant youth, the con-artists who ply their trade in agency reports, self-published books, mass media, and cyberspace, have to contend with fair and objective readers' ability to re-read passages, to verify with other sources, and to get a good handle on classifying each nugget of information as (a) probably valid, (b) probably invalid, or (c)_ don't know.

Mr. Ruff's habit of not reading things (and boasting about it) is akin to him giving the con-artist his money without the cards being dealt, much less flipped.

Mr. Ruff concludes:

I request that Craig McKee read over these posts carefully and admonish SEO for grossly distorting what I actually said and put him on notice that such distortions and outright lies will not be tolerated.

Oh, please do, Mr. Ruff! Please do! Being a man of letters himself, Mr. McKee will undoubtedly agree with my speculation into your high school grades for sophomore English. And he'll be scratching his head over how you could REPEATEDLY create and fall into the same stupid, ignorant, reasoning pitfalls, particularly when they were pointed out to you.

"Distortion and outright lies?" Just saying it is, does not make it so. And as my postings prove, if such exist in this exchange, they come from boastful and ignorant you (and Mr. Rogue).

+++++++++

Seeing how Mr. Ruff admits he can't read long "War & Peace" masterpieces, I might as well use this opportunity to address Mr. Rogue. It makes it so much easier for the ignorant readers like Mr. Ruff to scroll right over.

Mr. Rogue sets news standards for fair, objective, rational, and logical debate with these four entries: [1] 2013-08-27 at 3:58 pm; [2] 2013-08-27 at 8:02 pm; [3] 2013-08-28 at 11:32 am; and [4] 2013-08-28 at 12:01 pm. Readers should note that only two of the four are here; #2 & #3 are on Mr. Rogue's COTO homecourt where he does not allow debate. Ain't a single piece of substance to back up his hypnotic assertions regarding the demerits of my comments.

After Mr. Ruff got his hat handed to him for his imprecise usage of language and for his disinformation games that aim to REJECT entire swaths of valid nuggets of truth, Mr. Rogue's limp-wristed and misogynistic defense (2013-08-27) can only muster in its entirety:

Like I said Eleven, the most meager excuse for your perpetual twirlytwat.

Gems demonstrating his charming wit:

- arrogant son-of-a-bitch
- Señor El Nannyshit's raving postings
- delusional fuck
- complete asshole
- Señora is a nag and acts like he/she has a twat
- el Zorro
- this disingenuous entity
- flushing of his septic tanks

Mr. Rogue charges 2013-08-28:

I will here point out that the Timing of Señor suddenly flushing of his septic tanks onto this thread; 'JUST HAPPENS' to coincide with OSS finishing his Honegger Report on P4T.

Yes, let us look at the timing. Mr. Ruff and you have ignorantly bull-dozed many times that "you don't need to read no stinkin' book in order to pass judgment and REJECT all information contained therein, regardless of valid nuggets of truth not being preserved in alternative publications." Just one thread over, Mr. Ruff was trying this technique on Kevin Ryan's book, and got called on it in a major reputation-impacting way. Idiot that he is, he recycles the same exact tripe here without correcting or even acknowledging its deficiencies. In fact, he tries to spin it to the moderator (Mr. McKee) as if I've lied and distorted his words. Coincidence?

If there be any coincidences with the review of Ms. Honegger's work and my comments, it would be an admonishment for readers to be fair and objective, open-minded and tolerant, and vigilant to recognize & preserve nuggets of truth despite instances of bullshit in the same work.

I hope that "dear mister" Señor will have the decency to spare this forum another 3,000 word apologia to smother the conversation here yet more.

I can obligue your wishes. Including quotations from you and Mr. Ruff, this posting is only 1,505 words.

//


x165 Señor El Once : I expect the same

2013-08-29


x166 hybridrogue1 : Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?

2013-08-29


x167 Señor El Once : Consistently missing substantiating links

2013-08-30

No comments: