"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.
x117 => Turn Everything Around
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
- Señora Entity
- Señora Clitora d’Maxifuckanus
- Maxmixer
- Maxitwat
- Maxifarts
- Maxifartimus
- Maxifucks
- Maxifucker
- Maxifuckanus
- Maxitwit
- Agent Maxifuckassus
- asshole
- prick
- twat
- twat boy
- son-of-a-bitch
- motherfucker
- wankhead
- bullshit artist
- diaper dumper
- drooling mad monkey
- fruitloop of a different flavor
- crackpot
- crazy as a shit-house rat
- individual psycho
- hysterical
- this creature
- entity
- anonymous entity
- twatpatty entity
- maniac
- badger
- short order crook
- a gentleman snake
- snitfiddling pest
- little punk
- little twit
- vicious little prick
- vicious hyena that smells blood
- vicious character assassin
- cops
- spook
- 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
- bullshit system
- spurious bullshit
- vile bullshit
- milquetostada nannycanker bullshit
- horseshit
- blarney
- 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.
El-oh-el!
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!
x118 => How seriously does a sincere seeker of Truth have to take a proven lying, cheating, weasel?
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.
x119 => Preservation of Mill Grist
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)
17 comments:
Part 1/4
I've never really held to the belief that Mr. Rogue was "an agent." It was initially brought up just to push Mr. Rogue's buttons and to nudge him out of his stilted positions. True agents have access to more information -- some of it personal -- that they are willing to exploit. Anything to win. They certainly don't talk about the "Protocols of Zion" or other elements of the 9/11 ruse.
A former ally of Mr. Rogue (turned enemy) shed light on his real issue: that of being a psychopath. This is re-enforced by Mr. Rogue's own re-used introductory words towards new participants: "What does it mean to be well adjusted to a pathological society?"
+++ [1] Look for glib and superficial charm. A psychopath will also put on what professionals refer to as a "mask" of sanity that is likeable and pleasant.
I called Mr. Rogue "the WalMart-Greeter of T&S" for how he cheerfully acted when new participants arrived. When the alias of the new participant gave hints of being a female, the charm offensive intensified, "sweetheart." Until views diverged from his.
+++ [2] Look for a grandiose self perception. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are.
Mr. Rogue claimed that he was:
- 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)
Mr. Rogue's unwaivering championing of nano-thermite.
Mr. Rogue can find quotes, but he's been apart several times for not understanding the truth in those very passages, as if in a purposeful way, and not admitting when he was wrong. He's an artistic and weak in math and physics, but he struggles on with what is fed him.
I have dissected HR's better arguments against my one-trick-pony theme and found them wanting. Not just wanting, but purposely stilted. A closed-minded stiltedness in places (e.g., proper way to handle suspected disinfo sources) that is shockingly so opposite to his deep radical open-mindedness towards the psycho-pathic state, ala his jejune tiresome gambit "Tell me, so-and-so. What does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological worlds?..." When he's not being snarky and when he's off my hobby-horse, I have issue with like only 5% of what he says.
// Part 1/4
Part 2/4
+++ [3] Watch for a constant need for stimulation. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity.
Upon his entry to Truth & Shadows, Mr. Rogue's high frequency in comments has always been a noteworthy situation. At one time, Mr. McKee said that he made 30% of the last 1000 comments. He regularly gets dinged for having a high participation level exceeding the levels of several of top participants combined.
As real-life and income-earning began expanding the time between Mr. McKee's articles on Truth & Shadows, conversations on topics ran their course among the regulars and then silence came. Nervous Mr. Rogue would post quotes from others as a ping life-sign just to get a rise out of others.
+++ [4] Determine if there is pathological lying. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies; little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead.
Many of his little white lies in the 9/11 debates have been exposed above.
He is remembered on COTO for a big lie of dating a model/actress in his younger "hollywood" days. He even put up a picture of her and gave her a name. Upon reading his absurd story, one reader believed he as an extreme exaggerator at the least and a liar at the most, so the reader checked into the girl and his claim. It was easy to verify that he made the whole thing up. Turns out nothing about her bio matched his story. In other words, he didn't exaggerate; he outright lied about it.
+++ [5] Evaluate the level of manipulation. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force and other methods to manipulate.
Mr. Rogue posted many links on T&S to his endeavors on COTO. When I followed them there and ventured a comment, this is how he manipulated his co-horts.
[2012-11-13] "I don't want Señor around me Puddy. I hope that is clear to you. He is bad business. I don't want to see this stranger in our house.
[2013-11-20] [at 12:34 pm] "There is such a thing as a 'Restraining Order' Puddy, when it comes to your own blog. It is at your own fingertips. What more
is it going to take? How much more shit are you going to allow this shitheaded clown Señor stir-up? Are you seriously incapable of banning? This has gone too far. Do something. ... " [at 8:43 pm] "I want to wake both you and Deb up to the fact, the undeniable in your face fact that Señor is nothing but a stalking asshole. … I warned both of you from the very beginning about this skunk. … As it stands I have no culpability for the fact of this gameplaying son-of-a-bitch still being here, regardless of Deb buying into his lie that I "invited him here" that is simply balderdash. I'm going to say it one more time, ban this fucker. He has no rightful place here. …" [at 9:08 pm] "So what does it take to get your attention Puddy? … This is absurd. How long are you going to let this go on?
When push came to shove with an admin, it was written: "On HR's latest Prologue post, he starts out by giving me a half ass apology. Apparently, he thinks I'm stupid enough to fall for his manipulative BS. Au contraire! I think the Wizard has realized he's on the losing side and is trying to look like he is a bigger man than he is. Ha. Nice try but NO. Also in his post he is trying to convince me that my allowing you to post at coto is in error."
// Part 2/4
Part 3/4
+++ [6] Look for any feelings of guilt. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy.
Mr. Rogue regularly played up that "Señor El Once" is an alias. He published both an email address and an IP address, despite requests to remove them, despite valid concerns about maintaining privacy.
As written about Mr. Rogue: "He is a misogynistic, pompous, arrogant ass and he sucks the energy out of a discussion because he insists on flooding the page with his ridiculously long comments."
+++ [7] Consider the affect or emotional response a person has. Psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response.
+++ [8] Look for a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to non-psychopaths.
As written about Mr. Rogue: "I'd had enough of Will's childishness. Will's mind is closed. He's way too arrogant and pompous to consider anyone else's opinion when his mind is made up. Thus, the name calling directed at anyone that dare question his assessment of how they brought down the buildings or ANYTHING for that matter. He knows all. He is a god (in his own mind). I've listened to his boring diatribes and insults for way too long. While he's intelligent, he has no social skills whatsoever. He has no real respect for women, so the title of misogynist fits him very well."
+++ [9] Take a look at the person's lifestyle. Psychopaths are often parasitic, meaning they live off other people.
The mailing address for delivery of Dr. Wood's book was that of Mr. Rogue's mother.
+++ [10] Observe the person's behavior. The Hare Checklist includes three behavior indicators; poor behavior control, sexual promiscuity and early behavior problems.
Prologue and Carnival d’Maxifuckanus are behavior problems.
// Part 3/4
Part 4/5
+++ [11] Talk about goals. Psychopaths have unrealistic goals for the long term. Either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one's own accomplishments and abilities.
Mr. Rogue's "Prologue" on COTO and his whole blog demonstrate the lack of goals. Certainly disorganization and lack of discipline are at play; vastly unrelated things are posted one after another under the same discussion. There's an inability to separate the worthy from the unworthy "flame wars" so that they could be posted in separate threads to enhance the value of each. And if not enhance, than at least a separation so that the "flame wars" don't substract from the worthy.
Although having some fits and starts that might have hinted at greatness, overall Mr. Rogue's blog isn't about collecting the "the wise words of William Whitten" or the quotations from others of value that piqued Mr. Rogue's interest, a worthy legacy to leave the world and to educate.
[2012-10-19] "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." Never achieved.
Mr. Rogue exaggerates his accomplishments in addressing Dr. Wood's work, DEW, and nuclear devices.
+++ [12] Look at whether the person is impulsive or irresponsible. Both those characteristics are evidence of psychopathy.
The 17 comments in a row (that were deleted and then re-purposed into "The G.P. of HybridRogue1") were indicative of such an impulse. When engaged in debate, Mr. Rogue would often have two or more comments in response to a single comment. Sometimes, they were ten-to-one. The creation of his "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus" is another such impulse. That it still exists in largely its original form -- stilt, errors and defamation -- demonstrates irresponsibility. The inconsistency of its regular maintenance with regards to relevance or meaningfulness.
+++ [13] Consider whether the person can accept responsibility. A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment.
As written about Mr. Rogue by an admin: "It's about HR’s behavior towards fellow coto members. It's about his attitude, dude, get it? Senor isn’t the one chasing away new members with his nasty comments. The Wizard of Whitten has shown himself to the people of this blog. He's been exposed as a mean spirited, narcissistic person that can dish it out but can't take it. His delusions of grandeur that he has consistently displayed here have worn thing on many."
Mr. Rogue wrote: "Again it is the Señor entity’s 'revisionist-history framing' as far as the lynch mob activities on coto. No I do not claim that the entity ’caused the rift’ – he exasperated it, was a catalyst for the inner despotic nature of JG Rachet to synthesize into her rage. She used him, he used her – a demons bargain with one another. And now, for this 'colorful language' used in the entity’s latest offering to coto…well so much for the 'gentleman spook' aye? But I must say that it is certainly brave and a show of 'great integrity' {satirically speaking} for all the cotoscrews to continue to make their disparaging remarks on coto, as it is certain that any defensive remarks I might have won’t stand, for the ax of the raging nannybitch JG will make certain of that. And of course Booberwanker is like a cushion, taking on the impression of the last ass to sit on him. Y’all keep sniffing each other twats there ya hear?"
// Part 4/5
Part 5/5
+++ [14] Examine marital relationships. If there have been many short term marriages, the chances the person is a psychopath increase.
+++ [15] Look for a history of juvenile delinquency. Many psychopaths exhibit delinquent behaviors in their youth.
+++ [16] Check for criminal versatility. Psychopaths are able to get away with a lot, and while they might sometimes get caught, the ability to be flexible when committing crimes is an indicator.
Mr. Rogue writes well and adapts to the environment like having most of his insults and ad hominem disarmed at T&S, but his postings become shallow and repetitive.
+++ [17] Check out if a person makes constant use of "the poor fellow's imagery". Psychopaths are experts at manipulating our emotions and insecurities into causing us to view them as "poor injusticed fellows", thus lowering our sentimental guard and rendering us vulnerables for future exploitation. If this psychologic resource is continually combined with unacceptable and evil actions, this equals to a powerful alert sign about this person's real nature.
Mr. Rogue plays the victim. Says he was set-up by the Dr. Wood book review.
As written about Mr. Rogue by an admin: "If Senor is an 'agent' than it appears the only one here that has been played is Mr Rogue himself by continually 'engaging him in battle.' How ridiculous does he look if that is the case when it’s HR that looks like a hysterical child posting and reposting the same conversations they have for all to see? BORING. He hasn’t even noticed that no one cares !""
+++ [18] Pay extreme attention to the person's treatment towards others. Psychopaths are generally prone to belittle, humiliate, mistreat, mock and even attack physically (or kill, in extreme cases) people who normally would bring no benefits to him/her in any way, such as subordinates, physically frail or lower-ranking people, children, elderly people and even animals - especially the latter ones. Remember Arthur Schoepenhauer's famous words: "A person who harms or kills animals cannot be a good person at all".
Exhibit Mr. Rogue's departure from COTO. "He even pissed off and shocked poor Jay7 by calling him a smartass because the Wizard of Whitten thought he was defending JerseyG. How dare he go against the Wiz! I used to have a bit of sympathy for the man but my heart is totally hardened. He's a cad of the highest order. A vicious, arrogant, mean spirited little misogynist."
// Part 5/5
The following are quotes from other online sources that I don't credit.
+++
Pyschopaths and Sociopaths share:
- A disregard for laws and social mores
- A disregard for the rights of others
- A failure to feel remorse or guilt
- A tendency to display violent behavior
Sociopaths tend to be nervous and easily agitated. They are volatile and prone to emotional outbursts, including fits of rage. They are likely to be uneducated and live on the fringes of society, unable to hold down a steady job or stay in one place for very long. It is difficult but not impossible for sociopaths to form attachments with others. Many sociopaths are able to form an attachment to a particular individual or group, although they have no regard for society in general or its rules. In the eyes of others, sociopaths will appear to be very disturbed. Any crimes committed by a sociopath, including murder, will tend to be haphazard and spontaneous rather than planned.
... lack of remorse and lack of ability to take responsibility for their own actions
The psychopath is able to manipulate situations more easily than the sociopath because they are able to wear a mask of normalcy that allows them to fit in within social environments where the sociopath would stick out like a sore thumb.
... sociopaths act more impulsively than a psychopaths does. A sociopath would be a person who lashed out at someone they were angry with, while a psychopath would calmly and carefully plan revenge in a way that would avoid them getting caught.
... they regard others to be used, don't feel sympathy, empathy or guilt, and are often one step away from becoming what psychologists used to call psychopaths: criminally vindictive types whose only motivation is to take advantage of weaker people.
... incapable of sympathizing with the feelings of others, and lack the set of ethics that tend to keep society from dissolving into a chaotic mess where everyone only looks out for themselves. They also have a non-existent or impaired sense of disgust
... can still be destructive in a smaller, personal setting such as in friendships, romantic relationships, or in a family.
The sociopath lets a little more of his inner self come through; often he is disorganized, abrupt in his speech, easily annoyed, and quick to show his temper. He’s the one less likely to kill you, and the one you’re also less likely to want to invite to a party.
A sociopath may show a number of traits that make them unpleasant to be around—such as pathological lying, a lack of empathy, and overwhelming selfishness
+++
I'm not a psychologist. I'm not infallable, either. Case in point, I was wrong about Mr. Rogue being an agent, just as I'm probably wrong about him being a psychopath.
But if I were to have a little bit of fun with it, I'd say that Mr. Rogue is closer to a sociopath.
Indeed. Mr. Rogue has had a "devil-may-care" attitude regarding what he writes in the forums. It was his downfall on COTO. He was flaunting his violation of the COTO rules of engagement against me. Then impulsively violated their standards further against an admin. The way in which he jettisoned his COTO homecourt and all who participated there demonstrated his destructive nature in smaller, personal settings.
The disorganization of Mr. Rogue's blog as a whole and postings individually stand front and center. He has been abrupt in in language, easily annoyed (at being called an agent), and quick to show his temper (using colorful language.) His pathological lying has made him unpleasant to debate. The impulsive, violent, physical destruction of Dr. Wood's book stands out like a sour thumb.
At any rate, I express remorse at having pushed Mr. Rogue's buttons by calling him "an agent." It was never really my position, but at the time was about all I could think of to explain his behavior. Now that "sociopath" comes to light with Mr. Rogue's own hints about "what does it mean to be well-adjusted in a pathological world" turns the tables on what was really going on.
I am sorry for the offending "agency" remarks and wish Mr. Rogue well in his life.
//
Mr. Rogue may have landed on this blog once or twice, but he's obviously not subscribed. Otherwise the knowledge gained from, say, how the blog is used might have curbed his actions and some of his lies. He doesn't care.
Therefore, I have no way of knowing when he might have been apprised of the blog entry dedicated to him, much less this comment buried underneath.
Since my speculation into Mr. Rogue's mental state, I'm hoping to take a different course of action. He's just not all that important, and neither is anything he personally writes.
To this end as of today, I no longer subscribe to his endeavors. They simply aren't worthy. They are poorly organized, poorly formatted, and worst of all, poorly reasoned.
[Quotations from others that he posts are a different matter. But given how they encompass the entirety of many of his postings, they have an aura of being used in a deceitful manner to reflectively bolster Mr. Rogue's stature.]
Mr. Rogue gets his wish.
//
+++ begin from the top-level posting
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."
El-oh-el!
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!!!
+++ end from the top-level posting
"a fun game to play to get an actual the good, the bad, and the ugly book review"~2012-01-25
Although the above is somewhat buried, Mr. Rogue had ample opportunity from having cyber-stalked me to find it. The Pay-It-Forward efforts regarding Dr. Wood's book was on the table many months before Mr. Rogue came along.
//
2015-08-31
Patience is a virtue. Lying is not.
How is it that Mr. Rogue [August 31, 2015 at 2:39 pm] knows what pages 188 and 189 show in Dr. Wood's book? Such a stellar memory, he does not have. If his memory were really that good, he wouldn't have been caught in so many "misstatements" in our discussions in the past.
Therefore, the memory aid in use must be the book itself, the very one that Mr. Rogue repeatedly claimed that he physically destroyed with his own two hand in order to line his bird cage. Why? To avoid the assignment of reading the book with an expressed purpose of identifying the good, the bad, and the ugly.
I should get major-league kudos for my restraint in the discussions with Mr. Gloux. I could certainly set him straight on his Woodsian beliefs that don't quite hit the mark.
I'll be damned if Mr. Gloux didn't make an interesting point aimed at Mr. Rogue:
"You appear to be a “spook” working for the Government trying your best with your articulate manner to ridicule everything that points to the truth."
Instead of links to Mr. Rogue's lame blog entries whose commentary cannot make up its mind on what it wants to be, use this link.
Dr. Wood and Late-3rd Generation Nuclear Devices
Its whole purpose was for off-list discussions relating specifically to Dr. Wood and other fringe topics. Mr. Ruff is familiar with it, and Mr. Rogue was invited (but has been a no-show.)
Win-win-win for all the things that it spares T&S of.
Yep, I knew if I was patient enough, Mr. Rogue would pwn himself with Dr. Wood's book. El-Oh-El.
//
2015-09-04
Three items:
[Item 1]
Dearest Mr. Rogue should stop polluting ~my~ thread on his ~stellar~ -- *cough* *cough* *hack* *choke* *wheeze* -- blog with items and people that are not associated with me. I have denied such associations multiple times. His continuance in this foolery only makes him look stupid, stubborn, and vindictive. He'll know when I have an active role, because I take responsibility & credit for my work and all my aliases.
Mr. Rogue should establish new threads to smear debate opponents individually.
While we are on the subject of debate opponents and dedicated threads, where is Mr. Rogue's smear job for Mr. AWright? Mr. Rogue been debating him since 2012 as well, has amassed a ton of verbiage related to his carousel spins alone, and continues to drool related spittle. His total output dedicated to AWright is second probably only to output aimed at me. What gives? Is none of his effort taking down AWright worthy of preservation? For all the times Mr. Rogue has bemoaned renewed cranks on AWright's merry-go-round, had he been writing worthy entries and preserving his efforts together with source links, Mr. Rogue could have stopped those spin-cycles early in their revolutions with a link and quotation from his legacy.
[Item 2]
Were I a team leader for Mr. Roger Gloux or in any way in communication with him, I would set him straignt on Dr. Wood's work and disinformation contained therein. I find it worthy of study, but it was never the end station and never championed by me as such.
This is brought to light more clearly by my new 9/11 hero, Mr. Andre Gsponer, who has never mentioned 9/11 in his work that I'm aware of.
I've never read his book Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: The Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosives, Inertial Confinement Fusion and the Quest for Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons, which was in its fifth edition in March 1999. But by golly, Dr. Jones, Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Wood, et al should have!
The Executive Summary states:
The fourth chapter is devoted to fourth generation nuclear weapons. These new fission or fusion explosives could have yields in the range of 1 to 100 ton equivalents of TNT, i.e., in the gap which today separates conventional weapons from nuclear weapons. These relatively low-yield nuclear explosives would not qualify as weapons of {mass} destruction. Seven physical processes which could be used to make such low-yield nuclear weapons, or to make compact non-fission triggers for large scale thermonuclear explosions, are investigated in detail: subcritical fission-burn, magnetic compression, superheavy elements, antimatter, nuclear isomers, metallic hydrogen and superlasers (i.e., ultrapowerful lasers with intensities higher than 1019 W/cm^^2).
Even Mr. Gsponer's more accessible 2005 PDF Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects would have given tons of insight. This pre-dates much of Dr. Wood's website and certainly Dr. Wood's book [2010], but also Dr. Jones' Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers [2007].
As coincidence would have it, Mr. Rogue has never waded into this 54 page PDF file from Mr. Gsponer. Neither has Mr. Ruff who was challenged directly to do so in order to spare him a lashing to his integrity that his anticipated lame debunking of Dr. Wood's work would serve up. Debunking legitimately Mr. Gsponer's work would have been a two-fer with regards to debunking Dr. Wood! Mr. Ruff agreed, but then became a no-show... except for his pogo-horse romps on T&S chasing Dr. Wood's supporter, Mr. Gloux.
Mr. Rogue wrote September 3, 2015 at 1:06 pm:
My opinion is that it is well established that the DEW issue is bogus, and is meant as a distraction as it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.
Mr. Lilaleo gave a witty response September 3, 2015 at 1:26 pm:
Well, it is working quite well then, this distraction, isn’t it? ;-}]
Indeed. Indeed.
[Item 3]
Were I a team leader for Mr. Roger Gloux or in any way in communication with him, I would him give him a silver bullet to fatally pierce Mr. Rogue's integrity in the perceptions of the thinking readers.
Mr. McKee referred Mr. Gloux to the closed T&S blogs dedicated to Dr. Wood, where Mr. Gloux undoubtedly learned that, after much cajoling, Mr. Rogue received Dr. Wood's book for free [only in the monetary sense, el-oh-el.] The agreed barter exchange were that Mr. Rogue read the book cover-to-cover; provide an objective good, bad, ugly review; and in the end pass-it-along or pay-it-forward. No need to belabor this comment with specifics on how Mr. Rogue ran out the clock and spectacularly failed the three simple conditions.
However, what is extremely noteworthy is how Mr. Rogue shut down further attempts at a rational discussion and legitimate debunking of Dr. Wood. On March 4, 2013 at 7:10 pm Mr. Rogue wrote:
I decided to pull the pages out of this stupid book [by Dr. Judy Wood] and use them in the bottom of my bird’s cages. At least some good use was put to the paper.
For almost 2-1/2 years, this has been the official position of Mr. Rogue: he supposedly didn't have the book any more. A weasel move to avoid addressing specifics in the book. Even when his violent defacement of the book was mocked, Mr. Rogue never corrected the record. Until I go on a T&S vacation, that is. On August 24, 2015 at 1:34 pm, Mr. Rogue writes to Mr. Gloux:
I have the BOOK [from Dr. Judy Wood].
As proof that he has the book, other comments from Mr. Rogue in August 2015 reference specific pages and images to address certain points from Mr. Gloux.
Whereas Dr. Wood's book is a distraction (from Mr. Gsponer and FGNW), it has served very well as an objectivity test and an integrity test that continues to bloody noses even today!
The above blatant ~LIE~ from Mr. Rogue that he dutifully maintained for nearly 2-1/2 years in lieu of acknowledging any good in Dr. Wood's book?!!
The silver bullet fatally pierces Mr. Rogue's integrity and character. "Unfaithful in the small things..."
I wrote on March 5, 2013 at 3:28 pm
My money is betting that the above [destruction of Dr. Wood's book for bird cage liner] is just another fucking lie from Agent Rogue. I can wait a very long time before this lie is exposed, ...
Jackpot! Bingo! Full-house! Pay day! Woo-hoo!
... And what a long strange trip it has been!
//
2015-09-04
Dear Mr. Rogue,
You may think that the joke has been on me. From any outsider's objective opinion, it was a joke on your character: unfaithful in the small things...
Your attempt at a joke didn't affect me except to give me many opportunities to mock you for your alleged actions, if true, and you had take it, fool. I suspected from the onset it was a lie (with March 2013 comments that prove this), because destroying the book would have been indeed stupid. But you made that bed, so I made you lie in it. I knew your fib would be exposed one day. Until it was, you were punked and pwned on the theme and had to take it.
The joke is on you that you thought/think your ~lie~ ever presented you in a favorable light to those in on the joke or those ignorant thereof. Even more so when it was all about you weaseling out of a good, bad, and ugly section-by-section assessment of Dr. Wood. Could have been your opportunity to legitimately debunk Dr. Wood and achieved fame and stardom in the 9/11 Truth Movement. You flumuxed that one in a major way. It isn't as if I would have been in disagreement with your assessments of the bad or the work as a whole. Quite the contrary, I would have been strengthening and supporting you. Alas, the issue would always have been the remaining good that you avoid like the plague -- or an agent with an agenda. With exposure of this fib as the cherry on top, we don't have to entertain any notions of you being a sincere seeker of truth.
I already have a copy of the book, so sending it back to me would not have benefited the larger discussion. This was why it was never one of the initial options in the conditions. You could have sent it (or paid-it-forward) to Dr. Jones or Mr. Ruff or others and gotten this monkeyboy off your back. You refused. The record shows that your refusal to do any good-faith efforts into fulfilling the conditions of the agreement came first.
What makes it funnier from my perspective, is that you knew before the offer was extended how I was using Dr. Wood's book as an objectivity test and how it would play against you if you defaulted. Who's the dumb-fuck, Mr. Autodictat Genius? El-oh-el.
Instead, you stew in your juices about how all aspects of this long-play "joke" supposedly on me is really the epitomy of the depravity of your integrity. You have none. You discredit yourself.
Meanwhile, if I so desire (but don't), I can cyber-stalk you all over the internet where ever you play and legitimately label you "a liar, a cheat, and weasel" ... complete with supporting links that now includes your admission here.
I thank you for being my debate opponent. You helped me hone my arguments, improve my research, and build up my case. Too bad you didn't use the opportunity for the same.
Have not only a great weekend but also life! And stop re-animating me.
//
2018-05-11 MCB
Dear Mr. \\][//,
I just discovered (2018-05-11) this latest work from you that is undoubtedly at the height of your precious wisdom and talents. I thank you for this new homage to me that reveal itself in some of the 80 comments that are re-plays of snippets of our past discussions on Truth & Shadows from 2012.
I won't belabor the obvious point that re-attacking my views from 2012 is a straw-man cheat. I have a new position statement that reflects my maturing and evolving thought: 9/11 FGNW Prima Facie Case (2018-02-11).
I don't need to respond to any of your individual re-purposed extracts nor to your comments from recently. Except for one thing. You are being plagiarized. You might want to look into it and have them stop. Pay attention to the date stamps in order to get context.
You (hybridrogue1) wrote in July 9, 2014 at 1:44 pm "Maxwell Bridges can’t stop lying, for if he does he will have to stop his commentary entirely."
I suspect your comment was vacuumed up (along with plagiarized words from others) into a disinfo bot's database and was sent at me 2016-06-09 in an email. At the time I didn't make the connection they were plagiarizing from you.
Once your comment got into its databases, it was re-used again (2018-04-09) in a comment to my blog [now re-formatted to be within the blog article Part 3.]
I know that you like to copy your passages from one blog to another. But it was still quite the surprise to see the exact same quote again (2018-04-24) on your blog.
There are trends to be extrapolated.
Your \\][// blogging efforts: [1] "Carnival d'Maxifuckanus", [2] "Maxwell Briges: Agitprop Disinformant", and [3] "ELECTRONIC MEDIA".
PhantasyPublishing blogging efforts (that survive): [3] "9/11 FGNW: the natural evolutionary path and most reasonable explanation a fictional work" (2018-04-09) and [4] "more fictional delusional response by Maxwell C. Bridges" (2018-04-09)
// Part 1/2
Part 2/2
The selection of "turf" is fascinating, not so much from the perspective of dueling blogs, but in the subject matter. My most current work on FGNW (2016-03-11 & 2018-02-11) do not get taken apart, section-by-section. They don't get addressed at all.
Whereas you have a link to "The physical principles of thermonuclear explosives, inertial confinement fusion, and the quest for fourth generation nuclear weapons" by Andre Gsponer and Jean-Pierre Hurni, you get hung up on future-tense. You don't perform a deep-dive into the work to find out what was present-tense in 2000 (like late-3rd generation) nor if that could be applicable to 9/11. Exhibits both an inability to perform fundamental research and is just another a cheat.
That inability to perform fundamental research is why you hold to the line: "conclusive proof of controlled demolition using chemical explosives." Not true, and you have no proof. Not documented in the USGS Survey of the dust in the tables or explanatory text, nor by the RJLee Group, nor by Paul Lioy et al, nor by Dr. Steven Jones. The latter has never tested his samples for chemical explosives and A&E9/11Truth refused to test when brought to their attention. The true findings from the dust samples were (a) a significant percentage of tiny iron spheres, and (b) the radioactive and decay elements in proportional quantities as signature to fission/fusion devices (appeared in tables but never addressed in text of the USGS Report.)
They say, if you aren't getting any flak, you aren't over the target.
// Part 2/2 mcb
Mr. \\][// has become the victim of plagiarism. An online entity using the alias phantasypublishing has several instances of comments containing word-for-words passages that are easily proven to have been authored by Mr. \\][//. The latest incident took place May 22, 2018 at 9:53 PM.
Except for the poorly written and punctuated first sentence, the other paragraphs including the URL in the phantasypublishing quotation were plariarized from: hybridrogue1 aka Mr. \\][//, or Mr. Rogue April 24, 2014 at 11:20 am.
The copy-&-paste purposely:
- did not differentiate between Mr. phantasypublishing's (few) original words and those stolen from Mr. \\][// and gives a false impression of authorship.
- omitted the hybridrogue1 name for the creator of the stolen comment.
- omitted the \\][// signature of the creator of the stolen comment.
- omitted the URL to the source location of the stolen text.
- promoted the wrong impression with the URL in the stolen text. The stolen text was after-commentary about the T&S discussion, whose link was provided.
Of course, plagiarizing would ~not~ apply:
- if Mr. phantasypublishing is Mr. \\][//; or
- if Mr. \\][//'s efforts were work-for-hire and its copyright owner was the same for Mr. phantasypublishing's work-for-hire efforts; or
- if Mr. \\][// gives Mr. phantasypublishing permission to use Mr. \\][//'s words as Mr. phantasypublishing's own, and without attributing or acrediting the true author.
I would wager that Mr. \\][// would give his immediate and retro-active permission to have any of his penned attacks on me {MCB} re-purposed, re-loaded, and re-shot at me {MCB} by others in a ghost-writing sense. Woo-hoo!
... But without permission so easily obtained, the bot-half of Mr. phantasypublishing trips up.
//
Post a Comment