Sunday, September 1, 2013

I feel special, oh so special.

Hide All / Expand All

x168 Señor El Once : Do I ever feel special!


2013-09-01 { expect it to not be published.}

2013-08-30 {This sat in the moderation queue. I asked Mr. McKee either (a) to publish my response or (b) to delete my Rogue's comment (2013-08-29) and my response. I prefer (b), because it is a distraction from Mr. McKee's article and Mr. Rogue has other places where he's re-posted the same.}

Oh man! Do I ever feel special! It wasn't just these three postings from Mr. Rogue.

[1] 2013-08-29 – 2:51 pm
[2] 2013-08-29 – 3:22 pm
[3] 2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm

To my surprise, Mr. Rogue lets slip out Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) dedicated to me, when I thought PROLOGUE was his only one-sided homage to me. Such attention from an "Autodidact Polymath" who "worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention" (February 10, 2012 – 12:46 pm); who has ">35 years of studying the arts of espionage and has 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 at 12:42:29 PM); and who has been an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years and 9-11 Psyop... is an issue that [he understands] quite well (2009-03-23 at 10:47:49 AM). One tiny thing, however, is consistently missing from his post-doctoral efforts: reference links.

I wrote in Option 2 about how to handle a disingenuous opponent:

Option 2 is when you have nothing better to do. You respectfully address him, address the issue, and thank him for his participation... When he starts grinding around in circles over territory already covered, you provide a substantiating link for this (for lurker reader's benefit and to prove claims of "circus carousel"), and then you leave it alone. No links? No go; you forfeit for attempting hypnotic lies. Bad, irrelevant, or unsupportive links? Like Lance Armstrong (or lying on a resume), you'll eventually forfeit.

Regarding his [third] retread posting (2013-08-29 – 5:34 pm and here) that tries to summarize all of the bad filthy words that I've used to describe Mr. Rogue -- cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent --, the cherry-picked quotations from me lack substantiating links.

Ah, too bad! Mr. Rogue forfeits on a technicality while demonstrating a major deficiency in his "doctorates equivalent studies in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation". Had he provided substantiating links to the source locations where I allegedly wrote those terrible things, the context could be reviewed and his premises validated (or not). Mr. Rogue is afraid of the "or not."

The strawman premise and distraction that Mr. Rogue builds:

So Señor drops his phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar' with this: ...

The reason that I call it a "strawman premise and distraction" is that context proves that it is not me "dropping [a] phony veneer of 'gentleman scholar'". No, it is me "dropping down to Mr. Rogue's level" using language and words that he understands better and doing an excellent job of mocking him. What is worse for Mr. Rogue is that context also proves that I substantiate with Mr. Rogue's own exhibit how I come to such dastardly opinions: "cheat, liar, weasel, (in the past) agent."

I don't know why Mr. Rogue keeps kicking that sleeping "agent" dog. Lacking proof other than my suspicions from his stubborn debates with me, it is not something that I've been holding to since even last November. "Cheat, liar, weasel" is another issue, and maybe him kicking the sleeping agent dog is just another example of that.

Meanwhile, Mr. OSS wrote:

Either have a mature, sourced, responsive conversation with people here or piss off.

Mr. Adam Ruff dropped "mature" and "responsive" from his paraphrasing (coincidence?):

So as OSS said to you, make a legitimate, sourced, rational, argument or piss off.

SEO wrote:

Doesn't apply to just Mr. A.Wright. I expect the same from Mr. Ruff, who obviously can boast them as being a standard for all to follow.

Mr. Rogue comes unhinged with:

YOU "EXPECT"??? YOU? Who gives a fuck what YOU expect?

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Gotta walk the talk. So, yeah, "I EXPECT" and so do many others (including Mr. McKee.)

Seeing how Mr. Rogue brings it up, what does he expect? Rhetorical question, because Carnival d'Maxifuckanus (2013-03-06) and PROLOGUE already demonstrate the standards of "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational arguments" that Mr. Rogue -- "an intelligence analyst for more than 35 years" with a "doctorates equivalent in studies several times over in ... the techniques of propaganda and perception manipulation" -- EXPECTS from himself and others.

Mr. Rogue slams some hypnotic suggestion down (2013-08-29):

All can see the counter argument to the 12 points you claim over and again has never been made; at the URL in my last post. As far as I am concerned that's all you get. It is sufficient regardless of what YOU expect.

Ho-hum. I made 12 points. He claims that his Carnival d'Maxifuckanus has the counter-arguments to the twelve. In actuality, cheating Mr. Rogue won't let me post "mature, responsive, legitimate, sourced, rational counter-counter-arguments" to that blog or PROLOGUE; I know because I tried on 2013-03-19, but it was deleted. That's why you'll have to go "The Judy Wood Enigma" (2013-04-15) to see his counter-arguments get destroyed, point-by-point and ample examples highlighted of him cheating, lying, and being a weasel in his effort.

Yep, it demonstrates a lot about the character of Mr. Rogue that he would link to his one-sided Carnival d'Maxifuckanus instead of a two-sided "The Judy Wood Enigma".

With 243 comments to this thread at the time of writing, Mr. Rogue has 77 (31.7%) while I have only seven times less at 11 (4.5%). I am such a loser against Mr. Rogue.

Mr. Rogue, thank you for your participation. You are so cute when you come unhinged.


x169 Señor El Once : faulty assumptions


x170 Señor El Once : Drop it [SEO]. Leave it be.


x171 Señor El Once : delight with the same gift


x172 Señor El Once : disagree with your real-name argument


No comments: