"The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world."~Willy Whitten aka HybridRogue1 aka Mr. Rogue (February 2012)
Mr. Rogue writes April 13, 2014 at 1:32 am
Rhetorical slip-craft is part of Maxitwit’s tactical approach, but slander is his strategy. Slander is the object of his game.
Slander is verbal. Libel is written. Wikipedia: "Defamation ... is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual..."
Mr. Rogue contends April 14, 2014 at 8:58 pm:
That Max has defamation of my character as his central focus is clear enough to me, and I reiterate that it is this which is his so-called "hobby horse," the nookiedoodoo bullshit is just a ruse to cover for it, because this "theory" of his has bounced from one thing to the next – the only constant is his slurs aimed at myself and to some lesser extent against Mr Ruff.
The pre-requisites for "defamation of character" are "false statements." If the statements are true and can be substantiated as such from Mr. Rogue's own actions, regardless of the harm to Mr. Rogue's reputation, the statements are valid character assessments, and ~not~ defamation.
"Liar," "cheat," "weasel," and "agent" are the four character assessments in question. Has Mr. Rogue been guilty of all of them? A partial record is provided.
Mr. Rogue has been caught often purposely mis-remembering things and revising history. Too lazy to review the records. However, the lies that stand out the most are his promises (e.g., 2013-03-04) to "get off his Crank Carousel now" that get broken sometimes before I can respond.
Depending on how one wants to classify it -- a lie or a cheat --, a particular dubious technique employed by Mr. Rogue involved hypnotically asserting "topic X has already been addressed (and debunked)", when topic X had not been addressed or when topic X had been addressed but not debunked. Had the topic been addressed and/or debunked, a substantiating link might have settled the matter. In some cases, the debunking was debunked, but conveniently forgotten in the re-tread.
Mr. Rogue lied about his intentions to objectively read Dr. Wood's book cover-to-cover and proved a review. He did not finish reading the book. He claims to have physically destroyed the book.
In the distraction from the fact that Mr. Rogue's review of Dr. Wood's book did not happen, Mr. Rogue reasoned that the book overlapped the website and then uttered the lie that he had already debunked Dr. Wood's website, so didn't need to review the book. [If true, he could have re-purposed the debunking of the website, applied it to book review, provided links, and avoided the subsequent dings to his integrity.]
Mr. Rogue has lied about the content and history of the "Gay Porn of HybridRogue1". The original was a re-purposing of 17 comments in a row from Mr. Rogue to my COTO thread that were deleted by me for being spam, ad hominem, and not relevant. (2013-03-07) Mr. Rogue: "Most of what I posted on his nookiedoodoo page was copy and paste rearrangements of the vile crap he posted about me on T and S..." False; the 17 re-purposed comments were pure Mr. Rogue. By design, the "G.P. of HR1" had a short life, but was resurrected in a poor fashion by Veritable [a suspected sock-puppet] before it was purged, too. Despite this obvious fact, Mr. Rogue contended that mine was the only article every purged from COTO. [Since then, Mr. Rogue suffered two or more of his articles being purged.]
2012-10-06: Mr. Rogue claimed more than once that I had a "crusade to attack and belittle Professor Jones." When called on this, no substantiation or links were ever provided to how I was attacking and belittling. [It is a bit of a cheat as well to classify an objective review of Dr. Jones' work as such a crusade to attack the person of Dr. Jones.]
2013-03-06: "[T]he hidden agenda behind the DEW and Nuclear theories is to diminish the smoking gun evidence. This evidence in particular being the use of thermite in the controlled demolition of the WTC complex." If that smoking gun evidence was so convincing, Dr. Jones would have produced the calculations on the estimated quantities required for (a) pulverization and (b) maintenance of under-rubble hot-spots, and these quantities would be less than several hundred THOUSAND miles of garden hose.
2013-04-15: "There is no 'correlation of elements in the dust that spell out fission' – no actual correlation has been put forth other than assertions that those elements being present together must mean something, regardless of the fact that they are all ubiquitous in the environment generally." Jeff Prager's presentation, Nuclear 9/11 Dust Analysis [8MB], using the USGS's own data, was brought to the Mr. Rogue's attention several times.
2012-05-07: "[T]he damn cars were towed there [West Broadway and parking lot] from the areas around the towers." Videos from CBS reporter Vince Dimentri disprove this about the cars on West Broadway, taken before WTC-7 was demolished. 2013-04-15: "These vehicles were not damaged at these distant points but were towed there to make way for the clean-up crews and dumptrucks." True for the cars at the bridge, but not the torched vehicles along Broadway or the caticorner parking lot. 2014-04-08: "The cars along West Broadway were towed there afterwards." Repeating his past argument [from Dr. Greg Jenkins] while ignoring evidence to the contrary in the reporter's videos.
Mr. Rogue has deployed straw-man argumentation many times. When losing a debate, his rate of ad hominem style responses and forum-flooding increased.
A notable cheating tactic involved using his own thread ("Prologue") on COTO as a place to defame others. Nearly all rebuttals from me were deleted, regardless of content. One could argue whether or not the deletion of several of his COTO threads was planned, but their deletion stemmed directly from his defamatory actions.
His new blog continues in the defamatory tradition, and does not allow any rebuttal from me. Although he has the ability to post-edit anyone's comment -- to purge surgically what he finds offensive like being called "an agent" --, Mr. Rogue prefers deletion so no correction to the record can be made. He uses his blog to play the victim, to instigate flame wars, and to stay off-topic.
Hypnotic suggestion was a mainstain of Mr. Rogue's debate, applying all manner of crafty, creative, negative, belittling adjectives to premises or persons, to affect the perceptions of readers.
The realm of Dr. Wood's textbook has many examples of Mr. Rogue's cheats. One such cheat very late in the game was him saying that Dr. Wood's book had been misrepresented as being substantially different from her website. "FALSE ADVERTISING: There is NOTHING of substance that is new in this book that is not on that website! So there is nothing out of date as per Jenkins’ criticisms either." The book does have differences from the website -- organization, readability, correlation of images to map positions, and more --, but let's set these aside. Dr. Jenkins' criticisms are cherry-picked and not all encompassing. Dr. Wood's website has not been front-to-back debunked, not by Dr. Jenkins, not by Mr. Rogue, although Mr. Rogue made such a lie.
When "agent" accusations have subsided, Mr. Rogue regularly kicks them back to life: "you called me an agent before." Likewise for when "sock-puppet" accusations have subsided, Mr. Rogue kicks them back to life.
Mr. Rogue's engagement of "A.Wright" is a cheat. After one month of engagement on T&S, A.Wright's carousel nature and insincerity are known and obvious. The manner in which Mr. Rogue always rises to the occassion of A.Wright's circus comments, to crank the carousel (for the last 2 years), is suspect and reeks of legend-establishing, whether or not one factors in other information that weakly pegs A.Wright as being a sock-puppet of Mr. Rogue. [Veritable, another fawning COTO member departed abruptly when Mr. Rogue stormed out of COTO, landed back-slapping on Mr. Rogue's blog (off-and-on), and even introduced a 2nd profile at the same time Mr. Rogue was playing with a 2nd profile for himself. Another potential sock-puppet.]
For what it is worth, having one or more sock-puppets is not a crime and is not itself deceitful. How they are used is what can make them deceitful. When sock-puppets are used in the same thread to tag-team an issue, this is deceitful [Veritable/Rogue on COTO]. When sock-puppets are used to field both sides of debate [A.Wright/Rogue on T&S], on the surface it doesn't seem like cheating. However, by necessity, the sock-puppet has artificial boundaries to its personality that makes it stilted; its purpose is to be on one side of the debate no matter what, and its opinion won't be changed. Destined to lose, the deceit is the faux victory and legend-establishment for the sock-puppet's master.
2013-09-01: "And this point is augmented by all the other arguments made showing how ubiquitous these minuscule amounts of [tritium] radiation are: Why ineffective leach fields are the most likely source of most of these substances in metropolitan industrial centers. Which the city of New York most certainly is." Mr. Rogue played the games of (a) ignoring that minuscule is not the same as nothing, (b) ignoring that the minuscule was used with regards to amounts that would have negative health impacts, (c) ignoring that the minuscule amount was not measured in a timely fashion everywhere, (d) ignoring that what was published may not have been what was measured, and (e) ignoring that the minuscule was still 55 times greater than expected and necessitated re-defining what "trace and background levels" of tritium was. No where in that tritium report is there this unfounded speculation of "leach fields" with tritium flowing back to the WTC in New York.
Mr. Rogue went many months offering negative opinions about Dr. Wood's book without having it. His opinions may have been based on cursory review of Dr. Wood's website, although he rarely (or never) addressed specifics and substantiated it with links, except the re-purposing of Dr. Jenkins' work that also has issues.
Mr. Rogue agreed to the conditions applied to a free copy, which amounted to (1) reading it cover-to-cover, (2) writing a chapter-by-chapter review containing "the good, the bad, and the ugly", and (3) paying it forward or passing it along. When agreeing to the conditions, Mr. Rogue made sure to add the caveat that he could still offer [negative] opinions about Dr. Wood's work even if he had not finished reading the book. None of the three conditions were met.
When I created two postings on COTO, Mr. Rogue often would forego making a comment under my articles but would put them under his own thread.
Much of Mr. Rogue's commentary on his blog is a way for him to say things that are unacceptable in other places and he controls rebuttals.
Mr. Rogue maintains his web presence and dominance by making frequent comments, many of which are nothing more than quotations from others, although poor formatting often does not bring this to light until the end. The quotations are meant to give gravitas to how well-read and intelligent Mr. Rogue is. The quotation may or may not relate to the subject at hand. It has two aspects that make it a weasel move. (1) The quotes aren't something that offend and therefore give the impression that Mr. Rogue made lots of contributions that were "valuable" or "meaningful," even if they weren't his actual words or wisdom. (2) Mr. Rogue relies on the words of others to make his detailed points, whereby relevance, inapplicability, and errors from the source become the clues that Mr. Rogue did not have much depth to his understanding. Flame wars aside, Mr. Rogue does not draw on his own knowledge or understanding to make his case or, more importantly, to elaborate on and spell out relevance of any quoted passage on technical things. He doesn't apply a lot of skepticism to the sources from which he quotes.
When Mr. Rogue was first called "an agent," it was intended to jar him out of his closed-minded complacency and consider objectively all of the evidence, which at that point included Dr. Wood's book. It was intended to get him to stop some of his more dubious debate tactics. It was not a serious jibe.
Mr. Rogue's overblown reaction to being called "an agent" was an indication of a weak spot, a button to be pushed to get Mr. Rogue's goat.
As the tally of lies, cheats, and weasel-manuevers grew; as his posting count overwhelmed other participants on T&S; as he failed spectacularly in the Dr. Wood's book integrity test; as his position on NT despite its weaknesses never waivered; as he promoted lame theories that math and science and evidence don't fully support; as his unobjective and unfair assessments of alternative mechanisms could not be budged; as his underhanded attacks from his home courts increased; and as his uncharacteristic unhingement at being called "an agent" [at one point and not at that moment] exploded often in out-of-whack over-compensated denials and pre-emptive smear: the "agent" accusations became more than a button to pushed, but a valid suspicion.
"By their fruits ye shall know them."
Little hard substantiation can be offered, except the correlation of those validated negative character assessments (lying, cheating, weaseling) with his energetic efforts to discredit nuclear devices, DEW devices, and nuclear DEW devices. Exploring his efforts in any detail brings to light how lame they are. Most unravel as hypnotic suggestions with very little substance or analysis, and often bolstered by lies or cheats ["this topic has already been addressed in detail" when the topic hadn't been nor were appropriate GOTO links provided.]
Mr. Rogue 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). Mr. Rogue 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).
Musing aloud, these seem like skills that would be useful to an agent trying to squash all rational discussion into nuclear (DEW) devices, which indeed would be an agenda item from any Cass Sunstein inspired group infiltrating online discussions.
If Mr. Rogue would have approached Dr. Wood's work in an objective fashion as promised and would have delivered "anything" on what he committed himself, quite possibly today I would have respect for Mr. Rogue's integrity and character. He not only failed this test of his objectivity in a spectacular fashion, but also today continues to cover over his failings on this venture with more lies, more cheats, and defamation against me.
Maxitwat ... tries to turn everything around to claim I am attacking him.
El-oh-el. Here's a small subset of the creative things Mr. Rogue has called me. Can they be substantiated or do they fit as defamation?
- Señor Maxitwat
- Señor El Doodoo
- Señor El Obsolete
- Señora Entity
- Señora Clitora d’Maxifuckanus
- Agent Maxifuckassus
- twat boy
- bullshit artist
- diaper dumper
- drooling mad monkey
- fruitloop of a different flavor
- crazy as a shit-house rat
- individual psycho
- this creature
- anonymous entity
- twatpatty entity
- short order crook
- a gentleman snake
- snitfiddling pest
- little punk
- little twit
- vicious little prick
- vicious hyena that smells blood
- vicious character assassin
- profile of an agent
- a clever mole
- a product of CONTEL
Yes, by comparison, "liar," "cheat," "weasel," and "agent" are pretty restrained. Owing to their substantiation and repetition, though, I can see where Mr. Rogue considers them "vile" and "vicious". The truth hurts.
Mr. Rogue is also quick to apply a label to just about anything I call readers' attention to. A small subset would be:
- Argumentum Verbosium
- bullshit system
- spurious bullshit
- vile bullshit
- milquetostada nannycanker bullshit
- science fiction balderdash
- infinitum dismal carousels
- Carnival d’Maxifuckanus
- Anal Hurlant of defamation and slurs
- Full-Monty Delirium
- disingenuous rhetoric
– word voodoo
- degree of lunacy
- psychopathic rage
- mindset of a chump
- False Advertising
- suffering from a psychotic obsession
- fantangled bespangled rhetoric torrents
- fusillade of non sequiturs, misinterpretations, and full frontal lies
The essential point here should be that Maxitwat does not engage a clear and obvious troll such as A Wright, or Owenmeister...
Correct. I rode Mr. A.Wright's carousel on T&S before Mr. Rogue arrived in 2012. His repetitive games were noted. Mr. A.Wright can neither bolster nor despute my nuclear premises, but he can detour and distract. Engagement is futile. "Do not feed the troll" is advice that goes a long way and should have been heeded by Mr. Rogue in early 2012. Except that Mr. Rogue can't resist fresh spins on Mr. A.Wright's carousel, which take on a hue of legend-establishing to give Mr. Rogue "street-cred" in battling trolls and gravitas in the forum.
[T]his "theory" of his has bounced from one thing to the next...
Wrong. I suspected nuclear mechanisms from day one. I was open-minded enough to objectively explore the validity of different means: conventional controlled demolition, micro-nukes, nano-thermite, DEW spire-based and space-based, etc. I knew that one mechanism doesn't have to explain everything. In objectively exploring them, I learned of their strengths and weaknesses with regards to applicability to 9/11. More importantly, I learned of the deliberate deceit in the "scientific" papers for the science-challenged yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement that caused in me re-evaluation of previous "conclusions."
"Agent" suspicions linger around Mr. Rogue when acknowledged deceit, errors, and omissions in such reports didn't inspire re-evaluation of conclusions. The game playing would start: the extent of re-evaluation must be reeled in; the acknowledged deceit must be somehow un-acknowledged; discussions must be parked back at previous conclusions; any tricks acceptable, even off-list pot-shots.
[T]he only constant is his slurs aimed at myself and to some lesser extent against Mr Ruff. [... his slurs and defamation of his targets, his framing them as agents, or liars, or lacking intelligence.]
Mr. Rogue will be hard-pressed to find slurs in any significant amount or frequency. Framing someone as a liar is something Mr. Rogue does, because it implies without substantiation. When a person's statements are found contradictory to the facts or their previous statements, they've already built the frame of a liar; I merely smack some paint on it so it can be seen better by all, even the "target." Same situation with lack of intelligence.
Mr. Rogue wrote something very funny (2013-03-09):
And I charge that this all [good, bad, ugly review of Dr. Wood's book] was a set-up from the very beginning.
2012-06-04: "Dr. Judy Wood: Position Statement and Book Review".
Mr. Rogue should look at the posting very carefully, as well as the context and other postings. The first offer was made to Mr. Rogue on 2012-06-05, a second and third on 2012-06-06, and a fourth on 2012-06-07.
A set-up from the very beginning?!! El-oh-el!!! Telegraphed and in bold print from 2012-06-04 and earlier, too! A choice quote from me:
You’ve set yourself up, Señor Rogue, with your posting frequency and know-it-all comments and dominance over the last few months of the Truth & Shadows forum. ...
If you have a gatekeeping agenda, Señor Rogue, then the prospect of a book-in-your-possession that you don’t crack [ala Mr. Chandler] is going to be more dangerous to your reputation and that agenda than the no-book-at-all weasel-position [ala Mr. Jayhan and Mr. Shack] that you’ve been staking for months now. But both will be swung at you.
If you do not have a gatekeeping agenda, Señor Rogue, then WTF?!! The book-in-your-possession coupled with thinking-on-your-own after reading it ain’t going to give you metaphorical nose-bleeds like the gushers my book-as-a-bat will measure out.
If Dr. Wood’s textbook is to be shredded, I want it shredded rationally and legitimately through objective reasoning and actual review. Enough of your Willy-Nilly we-don’t-need-no-stinking-book-to-make-our-book-review.
"Any way you look at it, Señor Rogue, I'm going to make hay out of this situation."
The only course of action that Mr. Rogue could possibly have taken and that would not have damaged his reputation was the requested objective, chapter-by-chapter, "good, bad, ugly" review. Such a monumental fail, Mr. Rogue!
An element in my due-diligence does exist that could be construed as "pre-emptive discrediting of Mr. Rogue" but for valid, substantiated reasons. In actual fact, it is post-emptive on previous discussions and pre-emptive to nuclear discussions bound to happen. How seriously does a sincere seeker of Truth have to take a proven lying, cheating, weasel? In this sense, being an agent might be his only redeeming quality for toleration. "Better the devil that you know than the one you don't." Taking down an agent legitimately in the promotion of Truth is a valid blow to the corrupt system.
Mr. Rogue taunts on April 16, 2014 at 8:17 pm
The real issue with Señor El Once, aka Maxwell C Bridges aka el Señora d’Maxifuckanus, is that the creature fears me. It fears my lucidity and eloquence, and it knows that I can see through it with utter diaphaneity, as though I were an oracle.
Excellent example of projection. The only real lucidity exhibited by Mr. Rogue are the passages that he quotes from others. The only real eloquence exhibited by Mr. Rogue is his creativity in flame wars.
This is why the hysteria and paranoia grips the entity. It will try to frame these words as ‘vainglorious boasting and bragging’, but that will be it’s own rhodomontades, and defensive mechanism.
Thirty-two comments to Mr. Rogue's Carnival since April 11 that alternate between insults against me and lame attempts to address the nuclear case point elsewhere for ownership of hysteria and paranoia.
I would like nothing better than that this creature would come to its senses, and back off, dropping its whole campaign of defamation. Although I highly doubt that such a time will ever come. But if the creature wants to keep offering grist for the mill here, he would do that very thing, and stop harassing me at every opportunity.
Sounds like a threat. "This creature" doesn't have a "campaign of defamation", because false statements aren't being made.
Mr. Rogue's appears to be coming to his senses, though, that exposure of his dishonesty and deceit negatively affects his ability to carry out his agenda.
It isn't my job to preserve Mr. Rogue's mill grist or words. To the extent that my blog does have some of Mr. Rogue's comments, the original intent was to be able to quote him accurately in my responses and reference correctly the source location. As discussions grew, re-publishing more of Mr. Rogue's efforts was deemed expedient (1) to provide in cases more discussion context, (2) to demonstrate their full nature including tag-teaming and things I wasn't going to re-quote and address in my response, and (3) to cover for the likely event that the original context is purged, either at an admin's hand or his own, the former of which already happened on COTO. Many reasons -- from formatting to choice of language to posting-frequency to skew/deceit in the arguments -- has me suspect Mr. Rogue's articles (if not the blog itself) as being destined for the "bit-bucket" or "memory hole."
Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 1: Slippery Character in this Drama (2012-01-26)
Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 2: Elephant Talk (2012-04-11)
Pay-It-Forward Book Reviews Part 3: Salvage and Keep In Play (2012-05-22)
Ventura Highway into the Weeds (2012-11-11)
Encounter with the COTO-Crew-Cuts (2013-03-06)
The G.P. of Hybridrogue1 (2013-03-06)
lives up to the "weasel" (2013-08-12)
Assume that Triple-W is the infiltrator (2013-08-22)
I feel special, oh so special. (2013-09-01)
obsolete words for high school graduates (2013-09-04)
Preparation meets Opportunity (2013-09-10)
Prelude to Nookiedoo (2014-04-14)