x5 Señor El Once : Intro: Rising to the Occasion
2015-01-14
This posting has the rare feature of me rising to the occasion of what Mr. Rogue put on his blog by actually posting comments, un-published but read and responded to by Mr. Rogue.
The summary is that ludite Mr. Rogue attributed buggy T&S comment sequencing and valid HTML tricks repeatedly explained to "agent hands": my hands.
Mr. Rogue gets his ass handed to him in more ways than one, starting with proof that the juking comment was ironically his own, a knee-jerk response to Mr. Emmanual Goldstein and his brain-dead Dr. Wood's promotion. [Mr. McKee's administrator actions of sending Mr. Goldstein's comment back to the moderation queue left Mr. Rogue's response as an orphan.]
Owing to the juked sequencing, I started pre-pending notes to my comments with the date stamp of the comment to which I was responding and sometimes with a prediction (often wrong) on where the comment would appear.
x54 Señor El Once : Zapruder, Fetzer, and a Special Effects Artist
I have been a real-time lurker on this thread, but until recently I haven't had sufficient opinion to put on my waders, despite a corporate re-organization at the end of the October fiscal year that gave me almost as much free time on my hands to play on the internet as a retiree, were I not successfully avoiding the temptation (this comment exempted).
Two links. Mr. Rogue posted the first link already and at a top level, which sets the direction of the discussion that I won't be pursuing beyond this comment, although I look forward to the on- and off-list circus act that it will generate. Woo-hoo! The second link is owned by Mr. Rogue and is relevant but not pretty.
- http://www.takeourworldback.com/fetzersunstein.htm
- https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/james-fetzer-professional-conspiracy-theorist/
I have to admit that the first link is a rather convincing ding against Dr. Fetzer and runs parallel with my suspicions. The second link is not very convincing, although Mr. Rogue will thank me for the free advertising. Alas, anyone -- like me -- foolish enough to dive into the content of the 2nd link and the spirit of the endeavor taken in both isolation and as a blog whole readily sees Mr. Rogue ultimately ding himself with it.
My two cents on this JFK discussion and the players here, are that both Mr. Rogue and Dr. Fetzer have both truth and error in their arguments and tactics. Sometimes the error is put there on purpose, sometimes by stupid stubborness to re-arrange the evidence to support more viable theories.
Mr. Rogue, the self-proclaimed visual effects expert, has consistently taken the position with regards to JFK and 9/11 that imagery manipulation did ~not~ happen to great measure and to the extent that it changed what was viewed to affect perceptions and understanding. To clarify on 9/11, I know of one instance for sure where Mr. Rogue says the image was manipulated, and of a second instance [4 versions of helicopter shot: (1) nothing, (2) orb, (3) plane, (4) mask-and-use in new perspective] where Mr. Rogue would agree to the obvious manipulation.
Yet despite this, Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation, to apply the known cases to a different paradigm, or to speculate into what the NPT circus was distracting from.
[The strong unwillingness to mine disinformation sources for nuggets of truth is one of Mr. Rogue's consistent traits demonstrated previously and rather thoroughly with regards to Dr. Wood's work.]
With regards to JFK and the Zapruder film, Mr. Rogue has essentially said that he finds it authentic. I followed the discussion about the ghosting supposedly caused by the sprockets and its double-exposure. In the course of the discussion, Mr. Rogue made two comments that had me raise flags. The first paraphrased was that the experts didn't know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn't be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert.
Given the history of the Zapruder film and its many versions -- like those edited for television --, IT WAS MANIPULATED and we're foolish to believe otherwise. Probably no version made public can be trusted to be exactly what Zapruder's camera captured raw. Given our distance from the source material and our analyzing the analysis of others 2nd and 3rd hand, a broad stamp of authentication calls into question the agenda of the visual effects expert, particularly when factored with the following.
Somewhere on the internet is a video that explains how the Zapruder film could have been manipulated using Hollywood techniques of that era, otherwise known as trick photography. It involves making copies from the original from which masks for background and foreground (e.g., limo) are created [manually]. Once separated, foreground and background can be manipulated independently from one another, such as inserting or removing frames, before being overlaid into a single composit. In this manner, they could hide an event such as the JFK limo at one point coming to a complete stop. Ghosting would be one of the side-effects of inattentive overlaying efforts. Another side-effect would be aspects of the background no longer being congruent with the foreground.
One example of this that I recall (hazily) is of a red coated lady with camera on grass who seemingly wasn't focusing her attention or camera on the limo. The theory goes that she was part of the background mask and that after limo-stopping frames were removed from the foreground mask, the background lady's body positioning was out of synch with the limo.
Duped useful idiot that I am, I buy into the interpretation of the Zupruder film artifacts that suggest the entire film was manipulated with near state-of-the-art 1960's Hollywood technology. The delay in its public release helped soften its bombshell that multiple shooters were involved; the manipulation of the film itself helped obscure elements (like a stopped limo) that would suggest active enablement.
The sprockets double-exposure argument? Many decades experience with film and many generations of cameras [and the flaws they introduced] leading up to 1963 would surely have pointed the experts to the equipment [and to test using Zapruder's actual camera] for explanations on ghosting. It wouldn't have taken over a decade to say "sprockets." "Sprockets" becomes a back-stopping afterthought that the PTB invented a decade late to help DISTRACT from the lingering questions and anomalies of the JFK event.
I believe that a true visual effects expert would have exhibited more open-mindedness with regards to viability of imagery manipulation with both JFK and 9/11. The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel.
In light of similarly executed accusations of me being an agent, guess that makes this comment a classic Mexican stand-off.
//
x55 hybridrogue1 : Video Fakery
2014-12-05
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
2014-12-05
December 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm
Addressing Señor's post of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
As far as Señor's assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.
>>"The first paraphrased was that the experts didn't know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn't be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert."~Señor
Señor misframes this argument grossly. Any one who wishes to can go back through the thread and see that it was Fetzer's original misframe that Señor now repeats as my words.
I did not say " until much later" – I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames. And I have made the argument fully as to why this point disproves tampering with the original Z-film.
The issue here is that Señor has no more understanding of film, video or special effects than Fetzer.
>> "Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation"~Señor
I in fact "mined" the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called "video analysis".
As far as NPT, it connects to video fakery but is not the same issue. My critique of video fakery was substantial and to my (yes expert) opinion, false beyond any reasonable doubt.
As far as NPT,Señor himself finally came to reject the "theory" – is he now retracting such rejection?
. . . . .
And as far as the rest of Señor's post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects. Señor is in the same shoes as Fetzer and his minions, they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the issues of film and special effects'
Finally; Señor has been repeatedly warned by Mr McKee and myself not to bring my blog up on T&S. So no, I am not pleased with the anonymous entity's PR for HR1blog, nor his refusal to attend to Craig's admonitions on the issue.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
Once again, Señor attempts to confront me on issues he is utterly ignorant about on T&S
Addressing Señor's post on T&S of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
As far as Señor's assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.
>>"The first paraphrased was that the experts didn't know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn't be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert."~Señor
Señor misframes this argument grossly. Any one who wishes to can go back through the thread and see that it was Fetzer's original misframe that Señor now repeats as my words.
I did not say " until much later" – I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames. And I have made the argument fully as to why this point disproves tampering with the original Z-film.
The issue here is that Señor has no more understanding of film, video or special effects than Fetzer.
>> "Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of "no planes at the WTC" (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation"~Señor
I in fact "mined" the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called "video analysis".
As far as NPT, it connects to video fakery but is not the same issue. My critique of video fakery was substantial and to my (yes expert) opinion, false beyond any reasonable doubt.
As far as NPT,Señor himself finally came to reject the "theory" – is he now retracting such rejection?
. . . . .
And as far as the rest of Señor's post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects. Señor is in the same shoes as Fetzer and his minions, they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the issues of film and special effects'
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/#comment-29222
>>"I believe that a true visual effects expert would have exhibited more open-mindedness with regards to viability of imagery manipulation with both JFK and 9/11. The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel.
In light of similarly executed accusations of me being an agent, guess that makes this comment a classic Mexican stand-off."~Señor
. . . . . . . . .
"..a true visual effects expert"?? Whatever is this supposed to mean? My experience in the field is well acknowledged. And everything I say about it is attended by full explanations to my best ability to convey it to those without such experience.
. . . . . . . . .
>>" The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel."~Señor
This obvious innuendo that I am somehow in league putting on some sort of theater takes us back to "the good old days" of Señor's allegations as to my being a Q-group agent, and all the other defaming squattle he has attempted to frame me with.
No there is no "Mexican stand-off," Señor is laying in the sand mortally wounded,.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm
>>"I believe that a true visual effects expert would have exhibited more open-mindedness with regards to viability of imagery manipulation with both JFK and 9/11. The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel.
In light of similarly executed accusations of me being an agent, guess that makes this comment a classic Mexican stand-off."~Señor
. . . . . . . . .
"..a true visual effects expert"?? Whatever is this supposed to mean? My experience in the field is well acknowledged. And everything I say about it is attended by full explanations to my best ability to convey it to those without such experience.
. . . . . . . . .
>>" The broad brush with which it gets so confidently dismissed raises a flag and gives the whole Rogue-Fetzer discussion a bit of a MAD-style spy-vs.-spy feel."~Señor
This obvious innuendo that I am somehow in league putting on some sort of theater takes us back to "the good old days" of Señor's allegations as to my being a Q-group agent, and all the other defaming squattle he has attempted to frame me with.
No there is no "Mexican stand-off," Señor is laying in the sand mortally wounded,.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
So, what's up with the anonymous entity this time? Is he again fronting for Fetzer? Or is he just stupid?
If Fetzer shows up anew on that thread, I will lay you odds that this was a set up to massage the forum for another fucking circle jerk.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
So how does the Maxifuckanus do it? How does he place his comment where it is? Does he use his blank post technique to save that space and come back again with text?
His post should have ended up at the bottom of the thread if he pushed a reply button, it he had used the standard box at the bottom his comment would have ended up high into the thread like mine have when I forgot about the thread being off whack sequentially.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
My comment of December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am was originally just below Jiffydiver's comment of December 5, 2014 at 6:43 am
It was that way for at leas the last day and a half, now suddenly Señor has a comment posted between those two comments with a date/time stamp of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm
This is obvious tampering with the sequencing of the thread. How was this accomplished? I have no idea.
But I think it is worth investigation.
This ties into another situation on another thread where I responded to a comment by Señor, and rebuffed by Adam Syed for it addressing something Señor hadn't said. But I knew he had said it as an extension of what was then found lower in the tread. I was convinced I had seen that comment all together as a whole earlier. But gave in because I couldn't prove it. Now I am again convinced that this anonymous entity has the ability to fuck with the comments section in some way.
First of all, the comment Señor made that appears between Jiffydivers comment and the one I posted just below it: hybridrogue1 — December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am:
"An argument against Fetzer's cheesy bullshit is not an argument for the official story."
Has a time/date that is ealier than either mine of Jiffydivers — but it has been placed IN-BETWEEN the two!
So, WTF is going on?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-05
I have a screen shot now of this comment by Max with a PM time stamp sandwiched between two AM posts…
Visual evidence of hanky panky with the sequence on T&S.
I have also verified that when using the regular reply box at the bottom of the thread it throws the comment way up further into the middle of the thread.
\\][//
x56 Señor El Once : only jerking Mr. Rogue's chain with my spy-vs.-spy reference
Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:
- I am not championing NPT (at the WTC using imagery manipulation). I believe real aircraft were used at the WTC, but leave the type of aircraft open to conjecture. Variants of NPT at the Pentagon and Shanksville, however, still apply, which is probably why the whole NPT (at the WTC) meme and video fakery meme even got started and cranked.
- I was only jerking Mr. Rogue's chain with my spy-vs.-spy reference because the whole imagery of us three accused disinformation agents accusing the other two of being Sunstein agents makes us laughingly look like one of them thare Mexican stand-off's, where three banditos each with two cocked pistols have them aimed right at the other two bandito's heads.
My opinion at this point in time is that Mr. Rogue is not an agent, but a cantankerous curmudgeon retiree with too much time on his hands, a chip on his shoulder, long-standing social interaction issues, and age-related mental problems. And I love him so!
Mr. Rogue wrote:
I in fact "mined" the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called "video analysis".
Mr. Rogue is blowing hot air. Given his alleged area of expertise, his outspoken nature, and his fondness for heated debates, did he ever join the Clues forum and set its participants straight? No. Did he ever do an episode-by-episode analysis of "September Clues" on his blog? No. Does anything on his confused blog attempt to do address item-by-item what is presented in the film or on the forum? No. Par for his course, Mr. Rogue is all talky and no walky.
Don't construe the above criticism as support for "September Clues", its Clues forum, or their over-arching premises of NPT (at the WTC) as well as ~all~ images being faked. My concern is and has been for the proper acknowledgment and preservation of nuggets of truth that reside in all disinformation. In this case, the nugget of truth is that instances of digital manipulation did happen; the question is how much? Mr. Rogue has a demonstrated nasty habit of using a too broad of a broom in his sweeping dismissals.
Why is Mr. Rogue making purposeful and hasty lies that are so easy to disprove?
As far as Señor’s assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
"Any of the claims of video fakery?" Shit, don't I love how Mr. Rogue's 1960's era high school education betrays some of the things he should have learned, but didn't, like how over-generalizations are so easy to disprove just by finding one exception.
I'm too lazy to look up the T&S discussion where Mr. Rogue went deep into why some particular 9/11 image was digitally manipulated. Were Mr. Rogue foolish enough to deny this, though, he'll be served up the links and be deserving of not just the ire but the distrust of all participants. Be that as it may, this made up CLAIM #1 of imagery manipulation that Mr. Rogue acknowledges.
I provided an example of 9/11 imagery manipulation regarding the four versions of the helicopter shot. Although I had never discussed this directly with Mr. Rogue, I knew that he would have no problems labeling this a case of imagery manipulation. Sure enough:
As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.
Not only does the second sentence acknowledge CLAIM #2 of 9/11 imagery manipulation, it handily contradicts and disproves Mr. Rogue's first sentence. Mr. Rogue agrees to AT LEAST two claims of video fakery.
This whole insignificant episode highlights flaws in Mr. Rogue, and hence in his arguments: "All or nothing." It refers to the false paradigm that all of something has to be valid for the premise to be valid, and its corrillary that if something supporting the premise was found invalid then nothing supporting the premise was valid. This has other variants just as disenguous.
The point of this exercise was for a shoe to be placed into the door of the closing mind in a bid to keep an open mind about continued validity of evidence even when presented in works unraveled as disinformation.
Mr. Rogue wrote regarding the Zapruder film and its ghosting:
I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames.
Contrary to Mr. Rogue's bluster about grossly misframing the argument, this is in agreement with my assessment: "[T]he experts didn’t know what caused the ghosting until much later." I find the sprocket explanation too weak and too late.
Mr. Rogue writes:
And as far as the rest of Señor’s post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects.
This is a round-about way for Mr. Rogue to appeal to his own authority as a visual special effects expert while dismissing the learned observations of others without his credentials. As for the "authority" that Mr. Rogue claims, it doesn't have anything to do with cameras, photography, trick-photography, or modern-day pixel-pushing. He pushed clay, pencils, and paintbrushes. I wouldn't be surprised if he pushed chairs (e.g., ride administrator) at the amusement places where he claimed to work. The web doesn't have much of his work. Or much about him. A thin cover story. But I'll let him have it.
Final thoguhts about comment sequencing. Mr. Rogue has performed insufficient tests to be able to predict where comments will appear in a juked thread. The comments in this thread were already hosed from last year. Faulty indentation is another symptom.
Owing to Mr. Rogue's lazy nature, most of his recent comments to this thread (including December 4, 2014 at 9:59 pm and December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am) were created by the "Leave A Reply" field at the bottom of the comment section. This creates them as top-level comments.
Mr. JeffyDiver's December 5, 2014 at 6:43 am comment and my December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm comment were created, not by a top-level "Leave A Reply", but by a direct "Reply" to Mr. Rogue's comment, thereby posting them following Mr. Rogue's comment (of December 4, 2014 at 9:59 pm) and before his comment of December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am.
[This comment will be made as a "Reply" to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm comment to see where it lands. I expect that it will appear in front of Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm, but with faulty indentation.]
//
x57 hybridrogue1 : Señor Covert Op posting a PM comment in-between two AM comments
2014-12-06
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
So now I will be quite clear here regarding Señor Covert Op, and his mistake of posting a PM comment in-between two AM comments on T&S yesterday.
This is clear evidence of hacking and manipulating the sequence of the thread. I am sure that the entity would deny this emphatically, but who would expect anything but a denial of guilt by a covert operator?
I am sure Mr McKee would never dream of Mr Bridges ever doing anything so dastardly behind his back, as it is so underhanded that most anyone who believes they are friends would find such hard to expect.
But Bridges is a lie, he lives a lie, and has proven himself a highly qualified agent of deception. Among those qualifications is the entity's expertise with high tech and with computers specifically.
I have experience with such outside manipulation of comments on both COTO1 & C2. One involved an obvious and open agent of the state posting under the gravitar of "Shooter" and also using "AEAffiliates".
On a 9/11 discussion on C2 this operator was able to totally rearrange a series of comments, making a jumble out the argument so that it was incomprehensible.
On C1 this same poster and one of his affiliates made comments on one of my administrated threads. The were posting in tandem and making jokes about "conspiracy theorists".
After a day or so the comments from the associate simply disappeared. Of course I was the moderator and the only way that they could have been disappeared was for someone to hack into the moderators dashboard, or some other hightech hacking technique.
As I had the dashboard for this thread I was able to take note of the email address of both of these agents. One traced back to a dentist. This dentist was easily found with a web search. I found out the dentist's name, but wasn't certain that it wasn't someone else in the office using that computer for nefarious work.
This tale grew very complex over the next few days in ways that are beyond the the reason I am writing about, so I won't delve into it.
At any rate these are the only other two examples of what I detected Bridges doing with the T&S thread
If Bridges isn't a real agent, he is certainly a skunk. I vote for both options.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
In my view it matters little that Bridges has since renounced NPT and video-fakery, the point to me is that he was stupid enough to fall for such hoaxes in the first place, and had to be led by the hand to finally get it.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
By the way, if anyone reading this page get's it, it is Bridges himself who fully understands the error he made, and what it proves.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
I see that Bridges made commentary on the JFK thread again. He totally reversed what I was describing as the effect of using the Reply button and the standard box at the bottom of the thread…
And in his faulty experiment when he finally did use the standard comments box, well WTF do you know?
His comment ended up right there with Lilaleo's and mine just above – jfetzer2012 -November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
As Bridges is oft times dense purposely, I think that is what he was doing with his ass-backward experiment. I see it as another flimsy see-through ploy to confuse a very simple issue.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
Of course it is understood that it would go counter to Bridges' "professional ethics" to reveal any means and methods of his craft. So there is little to be gained by questioning him on this matter.
However he surely understands that I am keeping a close eye on his machinations, and will keep a record in much the manner as above, His luck will run out at some point should he persist in monkeying with the threads at T&S.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
Señor El Once Submitted on 2014/12/03 at 7:34 pm to, PROFILE OF A STOOGE – ALBURY SMITH
& Submitted on 2014/12/01 at 4:23 am to, JAMES FETZER PROFESSIONAL CONSPIRACY THEORIST
He also Submitted on 2014/10/14 at 3:05 pm to, IN CONTEXT: Current Events
All of these were blank, empty posts.
These aren't the only ones Bridges has read however, just the ones he posted a blank on. I know he is likely back on the followers list, so could just be reading his email updates. Either wqy he responded to my commentary here by trying the test out, regardless of how clumsily or spuriously that was. These very blank postings are one of the most troubling issues. In my experience it is impossible to post a blank email. The comment box frame turns from black to red when I push the button to post, and it simply does not post the empty box. And I postulate there is something in this little magic trick that is part of posting out of sequence and rewriting posts he has already posted.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-06
2014-12-06
Maxitwerp said that my page on Fetzer is "ugly". He has no taste! I think it is laid out quite nice. The photograph of Fetzer is certainly an ugly person, but well representative of him. The balance of the title and subtitle is nice. The introduction is brief, to the point and joined by a clever little story called 'Little Bird Meets Big Plane: A Fetzer Tale', which is a scathing and informative critique of our dear subject. There is plenty of meat and substance to the following commentary, with opinions of quite a few others added to my own, in fact even Señor is represented making some prescient arguments – which shows he is capable when not seeing to his agenda of attacking me.
No his criticism of that page is biased, he knows just as well as I do that Professor Humpty Dumpty is either stupid or he's the cops…and there is the chance that it was theater between Fetzer and he. Nothing is certain in "Mad Magazine, Spy v Spy" flavored Psyops.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 6, 2014 at 8:38 pm
As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.~a quote that Señor uses to set up the following comment:
>>"Not only does the second sentence acknowledge CLAIM #2 of 9/11 imagery manipulation, it handily contradicts and disproves Mr. Rogue's first sentence. Mr. Rogue agrees to AT LEAST two claims of video fakery."~Señor
Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking Mr Once. I stated clearly that this example of "video fakery" was not a before the fact matter. I stated that someone after the fact took a video of the plane coming in, matted that out and replaced it with the Globe. So this is not a matter of "video fakery" in the sense of what was taped and filmed on 9/11, which was the context of the "video fakery" argument being made.
You always "seem" to have a problem with context Mr Once, but I think there is another possibility we might consider…
. . . . . .
Now as per definitions, what I consider "top level comments" are ones such as these which flow with the conversation, which can only be accomplished once the thread is compromised with the glitch caused by removing a comment.
So you are reading my commentary in reverse. If you wish to test what I am referring to all you have to do is use the original box at the bottom of this thread and see that your comment will end up near Lilaleo's and my commentary further upstream.
I know you are remarking on the PM sandwiched between the two AM's from "another blog".
Now test the assertion by using the standard box at the bottom of this thread and see where it ends up.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 6, 2014 at 9:06 pm
* The only way to get a comment to go at the bottom of the line of comments is then to push the Reply button of a post just above or in that particular line of comments. This is clearly not what happened to the PM comment sandwiched between two AM comments in this case. *
This is exactly what I wrote – and you misinterpreted it!
And I assert that you did so on purpose.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 6, 2014 at 8:46 pm
Now Señor, as you see you missed my meaning and see exactly what I was talking about.
both of our recent comments end up just above:
jfetzer2012
November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
So do you have an excuse for your magic trick of placing your PM comment between the two AM comments?
Yes, yes I am sure you are "completely baffled" as to how that happened – grin.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 6, 2014 at 9:10 pm
The only way to get a comment to go at the bottom of the line of comments is then to push the Reply button of a post just above or in that particular line of comments. This is clearly not what happened to the PM comment sandwiched between two AM comments in this case.
These are my exact offsite words…and Señor 'somehow' misinterpreted it and did the exact opposite of the test I suggested…
So now again: the AM – PM – AM situation… your excuse?
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 6, 2014 at 9:44 pm
My last comment for this evening is some advice for Señor:
You are way out of your league in video and film manipulation and effects, so step back from the topic for our own good.
Secondly, whatever technique you used to misplace your comment we are discussing, don't do it again. if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass.
\\][//
x58 Señor El Once : comments juked before my return
Posted in reply to December 6, 2014 at 9:44 pm comment.
Dear Mr. Rogue,
Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking of the recent comments to this thread! Too bad that this thread had its comment sequencing juked back in 2013
I also commend you on the mighty fine, crafty little hair-split that you've manufactured.
I stated clearly that this example of "video fakery" was not a before the fact matter.
"After-the-fact", "before-the-fact", or "quasi-real-time": video fakery happened in the 9/11 realm. We're in rabid agreement. As such, I kindly ask you to reframe from making further overblown, over-generalized, hypnotic assertions that tries to take the whole meme of video fakery in 9/11 off of the table. It is okay to say when you think specific examples are authentic (e.g., not imagery manipulation).
Your wrote:
Now as per definitions, what I consider "top level comments" are ones such as these which flow with the conversation, which can only be accomplished once the thread is compromised with the glitch caused by removing a comment.
That is a pretty sucky definition of "top level comments." Let's get on the same page on at least this! A "top level comment" [in a non-juked discussion] should only be achieved by using the bottom-most "Leave A Reply" field. Using the "Reply" below under any rendered comment by definition should never become a "top level comment", but instead are child comments. When a parent at whatever level is removed or placed into moderation, where should the orphan child and their offspring tree be placed in the rendered heirachry?
The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query. The query includes walking recursively through a parent-to-child heirarchy of all of the comments in the result set. If you are logged into the blog, this identity information gets included in the query and does affect the result set. Specifically, you will see comments that you posted but sit in the moderation queue at the location in the thread where they belong as well as their offspring tree regardless of their status (published or moderation queue). Anybody else (other than the admin) will not see the moderated comments from you. When a parent comment is relegated to the moderation queue (or deleted), its published children become orphans. In ambiguous cases, the algorithm seems to favor placing these orphans (and their offspring tree) ~AFTER~ the heirarchy that it was able to parent-child step through properly. Hence introducing a juke.
The T&S blog supports only n-levels of discussion heirarchy. When discussion replies reach the n-th level, the parent-child relationship is perverted so the parent n is always assigned even when replying to a child of parent n; all discussion at the n-th level are placed in a queue based on time stamp; normal rendering indentation goes flat-line, because it helps with readability.
The present blog behavior indicates some n-th level parent having been relegated to the moderation queue (or deleted); this orphaned its children and locked in n-th level behavior at the (top) level where the orphans get published and sequentially ~after~ the valid heirarchy is rendered. Dr. Fetzer's comment from November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm appears to be an n-th level orphan. Right in front of his comment appears to be where the tail grows (comments are inserted) of the valid heirarchy. Juked.
My PM comment posted between two AM comments referenced T&S only, although my hypothesis at the time proved incorrect, due to not considering the n-th level effects being imposed when the orphans are published at the top-level. AM-PM-AM comments on another blog, I know not, nor do I care.
Here is a clue to the mystery that was supposed to peg me as an agent with superior IT hacking skills: WordPress comments support a limited amount of HTML. Look at the source code on a page that renders my moderated submission.
So do you have an excuse for your magic trick of placing your PM comment between the two AM comments? ... So now again: the AM – PM – AM situation… your excuse?
Yes, I do! Would you believe... that my fellow agents at the NSA were trying to find a way to fuck up the readability of this JFK discussion while at the same time introducing an event that can be spun (by you) in a suspicious way (against me)? So they purposely changed the parent-child sequencing on my entry, dropped a note in your input, and told you to make spy-vs.spy hay.
Me? I believe this (on T&S) AM-PM-AM anomalous comment sequence to be a side-effect of (1) orphaned comments, (2) their offspring trees, (3) n-th level rules being applied at top-level, and (4) the specific Reply links used by each in the AM-PM-AM sequence.
You are way out of your league in video and film manipulation and effects, so step back from the topic for our own good.
Mr. Rogue, you under-estimate both my knowledge and ability to learn complicated/scientific things, probably to the same extent that you inflate and fake your knowledge and abilities. Your threat sounds like a shove-off so that I don't get involved and then find other weaknesses to your arguments and you.
"Step back... for my own good?" What bad would happen if I pursued my present course of pointing out the obvious?
Secondly, whatever technique you used to misplace your comment we are discussing, don’t do it again.
Mr. Rogue, I do not have a track record of screwing with the comments when the sequencing is normal. You do. You've been reprimanded in other threads for placing comments where they don't belong. You regularly continue discussions by needlessly forking too soon to a new top-level comment. Your technique of multi-comments in response to one deviant or "bat-shit-crazy" comment often involves posting a "child" response, a "sibling" response, and sometimes a top-level response as a cap to the thread and the last words in the forum to date. An agenda of shutting down the deviant (already with multi-responses and multi-prong tactics from ridicule to malframing) would benefit from sequencing juking for its negative effects on latter-day-lurker readability.
Juked comments are not in my agenda's best interests.
Applies to you, too, Mr. Rogue:
if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass.
//
x59 hybridrogue1 : cantankerous curmudgeon retiree
2014-12-07
hybridrogue1
2014-12-07
"My opinion at this point in time is that Mr. Rogue is not an agent, but a cantankerous curmudgeon retiree with too much time on his hands, a chip on his shoulder, long-standing social interaction issues, and age-related mental problems. And I love him so!"~Maxitwat
My observation is that Bridges is totally disingenuous in practically all that he writes.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-07
Addressing Bridges' assertions: "long-standing social interaction issues, and age-related mental problems."
I have addressed these issues with the question; What does it mean to be well adjusted in a psychopathic society?
So how does one 'interact' with a society that is terminally psychopathic? Is such interaction healthy?
I think not, I think a large degree of isolation is preferable in order to inoculate oneself from what is in fact a contagion of psychopathy.
It is not that I am isolated in toto, I have interactions practically everyday with the TVZombies. I can amicably chit chat with these brainwashed creatures. I can even make subliminal hints as to the actual situation they are in, and they will often say, "Oh yea! I never looked at it that way". But it is not within my means to 'reprogram' these people.
The following paragraph may help in understanding what Bridges interprets as a profile of "curmudgeon":
"If you choose to travel the road to the truth, then you must be prepared for the obstacles that await you. You may be condemned or criticized by your family, your friends, your lovers, or your co-workers. This is their programming that began at birth that is doing exactly what it's supposed to do. You're going to have to be stronger than that. You must realize that there is a reality that exists outside of this controlled artificial system. Like Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade, he took that 'leap of faith' over the bridgeless canyon in an attempt to get to the other side. Like Neo in the Matrix, he took the red pill from Morpheus in his attempt to cross over to his real self. Once you wake up, it's as if a hypnotist came along and snapped his fingers. You wake up and say to yourself, "Oh my god. I can see it now. Why did it take me so long to wake up?!" For some of you it can be a major shock. Like anything else, take this information and knowledge in stages. If it took a lifetime for them to mold your reality for you, then you know that it may take longer than a day to fully awaken. Remember, the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
http://www.alexansary.blogspot.com
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-07
So now the question attendant to my comment above should be briefly addressed: What is Bridges' problem? He obviously has a problem with me, he is fanatical on it. He said at the end of the quote I am addressing; "And I love him so!"
Yes a love-hate dialectic drives his emotions here. I see admiration twisted into jealousy, plus a rage that I do not love him back. I love humanity as a whole, and Bridges is not excluded from that generalization. But I also do not want his attentions – that is something he cannot seem to grasp. I find him an exhausting bore. This "relationship" is forced upon me, I am coerced into it by his constant sniping.
I do not need his psychosis slathered on me with the constancy it has been. I want him to go away. I want him to refrain from addressing me on T&S, and I want him not to refer to me in anyway. I have had too much of this attention. Enough!
\\][//
x60 hybridrogue1 : agent: accusing you point blank
2014-12-08
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
So I see it is easy enough to post a blank when one has control at the dashboard. as I do as moderator here. My problem is the mystery of having the ability to post a blank off site without hacking a dashboard.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm
>>"Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking of the recent comments to this thread! Too bad that this thread had its comment sequencing juked back in 2013. Comments in the moderation queue and deleted comments were part of the cause and remain so today, to everyone's consternation."~Señor El Once – December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
. . . .
It is not "innuendo" in any sense of the word whatsoever. I am accusing you point blank.
Your pointing out "comment sequencing juked back in 2013? is a hand-wave of the issue I have pointed out that you refuse to acknowledge, having nothing to do with the out of sequence posts that you, and I, and even Mr McKee tested. No your post of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm is entirely unique and has nothing to do with the standard "juke" that occurs on many wordpress threads when a comment is removed.
Your post of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm, does not end up in the thread as per such a standard glitch as we are all aware of. That PM post ends up between two AM posts which were in sequence before you comment was posted and mysteriously ended up sandwiched between them.
Your pretense continuing here, that you do not notice the distinction is very telling.
I will address your other squattle meant to distract from your spurious "missing the point of PM between AM" in another post.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
December 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm
>>"I also commend you on the mighty fine, crafty little hair-split that you've manufactured.
After-the-fact", "before-the-fact", or "quasi-real-time": video fakery happened in the 9/11 realm. We're in rabid agreement. As such, I kindly ask you to reframe from making further overblown, over-generalized, hypnotic assertions that tries to take the whole meme of video fakery in 9/11 off of the table. It is okay to say when you think specific examples are authentic (e.g., not imagery manipulation)."~Señor
. . . . .
It is hardly a "crafty little hair-split" to explain that the issue of the Orb video is not one of the videos that can be characterized as one of the items that were manufactured 'Before the fact' as something shown on television on 9/11. This video is something that was later manufactured – 'After the fact', and has no bearing on the original "Video Fakery" charges. Again your pretending that you do not grasp this distinction is just more of your spurious rhetoric.
"We're in rabid agreement" in absolutely nothing here, and don't pretend that we are.
The whole section here beginning with: "The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query…" is absolutely irrelevant – this thread is not under moderation. Thus this section is again argumentum verbosium – a lengthily stretch of text having no bearing on the question at hand.
. . . .
>>"Mr. Rogue, I do not have a track record of screwing with the comments when the sequencing is normal. You do. You've been reprimanded in other threads for placing comments where they don't belong. You regularly continue discussions by needlessly forking too soon to a new top-level comment. Your technique of multi-comments in response to one deviant or "bat-shit-crazy" comment often involves posting a "child" response, a "sibling" response, and sometimes a top-level response as a cap to the thread and the last words in the forum to date. An agenda of shutting down the deviant (already with multi-responses and multi-prong tactics from ridicule to malframing) would benefit from sequencing juking for its negative effects on latter-day-lurker readability."~~Señor
More distraction; when I posted something "out of sequence", it was clearly done on purpose and had nothing to do with the problem we are addressing today – those comments you complain of were clearly dated later and are "children" of a comment made before – I did not place them there by any subversive technical means – which IS the question we face today.
As far as your grasp of film and video manipulation, I stand by my advice to stay away from the topic as you continue to show no understanding of the topic. The only topic you clearly are masterful at is disingenuous rhetoric and fraudulent gamesmanship.
Now, as I know you are attending my blog, you know perfectly well that I abhor these continuing hijackings of a thread's subject matter. Again, you set out the whole argument on the Zapruder film. When you finally did comment, it was bereft of any substantial discussion of this topic; it was AGAIN an attack on me.
I have told you too many times how old and boring this situation is.
I repeat, I do not need his psychosis slathered on me with the constancy it has been. I want you to go away. I want you to refrain from addressing me on T&S, and I want you not to refer to me in anyway. I have had too much of this attention. Enough!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
December 8, 2014 at 3:54 pm
Well, it is pretty obvious that Señor is attempting to bury the AM PM issue with a bunch of other bullshit. There is no connection between the standard glitch we all know that happens from deleting a comment. That is proved by the other test comments that used the standard box at the bottom on this thread.
I suppose that Señor thinks the issue is "heady" enough to pile on the bullshit so those who can't follow the argument will be lost. Again the "appeal to the lowest common denominator", so often the technique of shills like he and Fetzer.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
Obviously Maxifuckanus does not want this page to come to an end, as he continues to harass me at T&S with utter tripe.
Bridges again dodges the question and makes up long spurious distractions to hide the fact that he will not explain the PM sandwiched between two AM comments. Worse than simply claiming that he simply doesn't know, he goes on and on with bullshit to baffle and confuse the very clear issue that must be cleared up, and this spew of mud does the opposite of clearing up.
"I think the twat doth protest too much" is a good point to make here.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
2014-12-08
There has been another post that has gone up on high by error here. May I direct you to this one – in the same area of the thread as the rest doing test comments:
Al Heyward – December 8, 2014 at 5:13 pm
"What I find oddest in amongst the oddities on this thread is the fact that a p.m. comment can end up between two a.m. comments."
. . . . .
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 8, 2014 at 8:04 pm
2014-12-08
Let us deconstruct the latest jibber-jabber presented by Señor el Once:
>> "The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query. The query includes walking recursively through a parent-to-child heirarchy (sic) of all of the comments in the result set. If you are logged into the blog, this identity information gets included in the query and does affect the result set. Specifically, you will see comments that you posted but sit in the moderation queue at the location in the thread where they belong as well as their offspring tree regardless of their status (published or moderation queue). Anybody else (other than the admin) will not see the moderated comments from you. When a parent comment is relegated to the moderation queue (or deleted), its published children become orphans. In ambiguous cases, the algorithm seems to favor placing these orphans (and their offspring tree) ~AFTER~ the heirarchy (sic) that it was able to parent-child step through properly. Hence introducing a juke."~Señor
This entire comment is immaterial to the issue. This thread is not moderated., so this whole exercise is just Señor doing his standard distraction ploy.
Then after two more immaterial paragraphs we finally get to this:
>> "My PM comment posted between two AM comments referenced T&S only, although my hypothesis at the time proved incorrect, due to not considering the n-th level effects being imposed when the orphans are published at the top-level. *AM-PM-AM comments on another blog, I know not, nor do I care.*"~Señor
So his "hypothesis at the time proved incorrect" … yes indeed, NO SHIT SHERLOCK.
It "proved incorrect" because it was scrambled bullshit used as a distraction. As for his "AM-PM-AM comments on another blog" .??? WTF? No one has said anything about any AM-PM-AM comments on another blog.
I mention his ability to post blank comments on my blog, but never anything about AM-PM-AM comments.
His final exclamation of "I know not, nor do I care," in fact refers to this blog.
Max finally admits via subtext that he is claiming ignorance as to how his AM-PM-AM comment was accomplished on T&S. And this is hidden between all manner of needless verbosity.
This scurrilous and disingenuous verbal runaround has become all too typical fare for the anonymous covert operator Señor el Once.
So Señor claims innocence, leaving only the blatant circumstantial evidence and grins like the conman he is because he gets out of one more tight spot.
How anyone could buy his story is beyond me.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
It makes no difference to me whether Maxitwat is a real agent or simply a raging psycho-stalker. I want him to get off of my ass.
From my experience with this lunatic, I would say he is an agent as well as a psycho. But which ever it really is the bottom line is the same. His constant harassment should be reined in on T&S. And I don't want any of this nonsense about just ignoring him and he will go away. He comes in slashing with his psycho-shank out of the blue whether anyone has mentioned him or not. He is a fucking fanatic if nothing else.
He needs permanent residence in a rubber room.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
And you attempt to turn these words of mine back against me:
>> "if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass."
This is redefining the term "hacking", when my actions entailed no special technique of breaking into a system by stealth with expert methods.
So far just about every word you have written in your post of, December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm, has been shown to be bullshit of one flavor or another.
\\][//
x61 Señor El Once : Narcissist Mr. Rogue Counters
{mcb: Initially was placed into the moderation queue; must have been nuclear keywords, because it had insufficient links to trigger moderation. May never get published.
[Replied made to my December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. Owing to juking, I predict that it will be published at a top-level below Mr. Rogue's December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am.] {mcb: The prediction was wrong.}
Mr. Rogue makes agenthood accusations against me based on his own faulty reasoning, poor observation skills, poor online habits, and poor technical understanding of just about anything [unless it is handed to him to cut and paste.] And even then, he won't get it.
In this latest round of agency charges, Mr. Rogue seems to have three pillars. (1) The comment sequencing is juked. (2) I have the ability to post blank comments. (3) I was able to insert a PM comment in between two earlier AM comments.
Unless ludite Mr. Rogue has changed his habits, he is not subscribed to the comments on any of T&S. [This poor online technique alone makes a reader re-think what it means to stalk and troll, because without email notifications, the task of locating new comments on all T&S threads manually would be time-consuming, mostly fruitless, and contributary to a combative attitude.] Thus, Mr. Rogue probably can't review the comment emails to verify my statements, but readers can expect him to pipe many-fold in with his ignorance anyway. On T&S alone, I got five and then seven responses from Mr. Rogue to my last two comments. I must be doing something right. He could have ignored me, and been much better off, which we will soon see.
Pillar #1 of the latest SEO-is-an-agent charge is that the comments in this thread are juked. Mr. Rogue directly accuses me this dastardly deed, to hell with any innuendo!
Using the blog and emails together in an outline notation, the following shows the original hierarchy, commenter, time-stamp, comment number, and intro to the comment.
x. Emmanuel Goldstein November 29, 2014 at 11:12 am [#comment-29041]: contents replaced with a strong rebuke by Mr. McKee.
x.1 jfetzer2012 November 29, 2014 at 1:29 pm [#comment-29048]: "This is the kind of moronic drivel I have come to expect from Judy Wood and her cult."
x.1.1 hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 1:36 pm [#comment-29051]: "This is the equivalent of the intellectual performance of hybridrogue1"
x.1.2 Emmanuel Goldstein November 29, 2014 [#comment-29053]: This comment plugged "WDTTG" and was removed by Mr. McKee.
x.1.2.1 hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm [#comment-29054]. "It is enough to have one fruitcake here". This comment appears on blog at top-level (x+y).
Here's the irony of this. Mr. Rogue's November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm is the exact point of juking.
How so? Notice how Mr. Rogue's comment is at the 4-th level. When I talked about n as being the maximum number of discussion nesting levels and n-th level effects, four nesting levels (n=4) is what Mr. McKee implemented.
According to parent-child information from the email, Mr. Rogue's replying comment (x.1.2.1) should be 4th level nested. But if you look on the blog, it isn't. Mr. Goldstein's [x.1.2] comment was removed, turning Mr. Rogue's comment into an orphan at the top-level (e.g., no indentation).
This thoroughly nukes Mr. Rogue's Pillar #1 of the latest SEO-is-an-agent charge.
Pillar # 2 of Mr. Rogue's latest SEO-is-an-agent charge is that I have the "agent IT trick" of being able to make blank comments (like on his blog.) HTML syntax is not an empty comment, even if rendered as a "blank." Mr. Rogue and the vast weaknesses of his arguments do not permit any direct replies from me on his blog, so it doesn't behoove me to write anything. Just because a comment never gets out of the moderation queue or is deleted doesn't mean that checking the box for "notify me of new comments via email" won't be honored.
Pillar # 3 of Mr. Rogue's latest SEO-is-an-agent charge is that an afternoon (PM) comment from me was able to appear between two earlier comments from the same morning (AM). Talk about a disingenuous Mr. Rogue! Any participant could go to any non-juked T&S article and to any discussion that isn't already at the n-th level and insert a comment of today that sits between comments with earlier time stamps. This is by-design and how it is supposed to work.
Accoring to the parent-child information obtained from the emails, this is what the heirarchy was supposed to look like. [xxx represents a large number of replies/levels where Mr. Rogue was doing replies to postings in order to seemingly get the last rendered position on the thread.]
x.1.2.1.xxx.1 hybridrogue1 December 4, 2014 at 9:59 pm [#comment-29204]: I am reposting this as it ended further up in the thread.
x.1.2.1.xxx.1.1 jeffydiver December 5, 2014 at 6:43 am [#comment-29207]: Yeah, that's a long one.
x.1.2.1.xxx.1.1.1 hybridrogue1 December 5, 2014 at 6:56 am [#comment-29208]: An argument against Fetzer's cheesy].
x.1.2.1.xxx.1.2 Señor El Once December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm [#comment-29222]: I have been a real-time lurker.
The juked thread published them instead in this order:
[#comment-29204]
[#comment-29207]
[#comment-29222]
[#comment-29208]
With m>n and n being the maximum number of levels, the juked thread's alghorithm grouped together two (m)-level replies before it rendered any (m+1)-level replies. As far as we know, this is by-design for when the maximum (n)-levels has been exceeded. But all bets are off, because a known (n)-level orphan comment from Mr. Rogue already juked the thread.
Because Mr. Rogue is attacking me for allegedly being an agent, let's not waste another opportunity to show another ironic example of how disingenuous Mr. Rogue is. Days before I re-entered the discussion, we have this curious juking of the sequencing of comments rendered at the top-level.
hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 1:47 pm
jeffydiver December 1, 2014 at 7:12 pm
hybridrogue1 November 29, 2014 at 2:04 pm
How come Mr. Rogue didn't come unhinged at Mr. JeffyDiver for this obvious "agent IT trick", days before my involvement? Because Mr. Rogue is thoroughly disingenuous. Nothing is there to stop Mr. Rogue's stupidity and ignorance from jumping (purposely) to wrong conclusions.
I am accusing you point blank [regarding being an "agent" and having a hand in the juking of the recent comments to this thread].
Mr. Rogue has some nerve. How soon he forgets the comments (from others) in late November that were handled by Mr. McKee and lead to this juked section. How convenient to shift the blame to me.
I see his tactics as nothing more than CYA antics.
Now back to the real subject. I wrote:
I also commend you on the mighty fine, crafty little hair-split that you've manufactured.
[Mr. Rogue had written:] I stated clearly that this example of "video fakery" was not a before the fact matter.
"After-the-fact", "before-the-fact", or "quasi-real-time": video fakery happened in the 9/11 realm. We're in rabid agreement. As such, I kindly ask you to reframe from making further overblown, over-generalized, hypnotic assertions that tries to take the whole meme of video fakery in 9/11 off of the table. It is okay to say when you think specific examples are authentic (e.g., not imagery manipulation).
Mr. Rogue replies:
It is hardly a "crafty little hair-split" to explain that the issue of the Orb video is not one of the videos that can be characterized as one of the items that were manufactured 'Before the fact' as something shown on television on 9/11. This video is something that was later manufactured – 'After the fact', and has no bearing on the original "Video Fakery" charges. Again your pretending that you do not grasp this distinction is just more of your spurious rhetoric.
Spurious rhetoric charges and an inability to grasp distinctions applies to Mr. Rogue in this case.
Mr. Rogue's argument is that the original video fakery premise only applied to manipulation of imagery ~before~ (or ~at~) the event so they could be played on the day of the event. He wants to exclude all imagery manipulation relating to 9/11 if it was "created" and/or made public ~after~ 9/11. How much "shocking" video of 9/11 was aired on 9/11? Versus, how much trickled into the public domain in the days, weeks, months (and years) after 9/11? The answers to these questions alone prove that Mr. Rogue's "after the fact" argument is pulled directly from his rear.
Getting Mr. Rogue to the point where he will even admit isolated instances of imagery manipulation relating to 9/11 is a watershed event. Pisses him off, because he undermines one of his agenda items to prevent, shut down early, and derail any form of rational and contemplative discussion of anomalous 9/11 things [including imagery manipulation.]
As far as your grasp of film and video manipulation, I stand by my advice to stay away from the topic as you continue to show no understanding of the topic. The only topic you clearly are masterful at is disingenuous rhetoric and fraudulent gamesmanship.
It would be wrong to assume that Mr. Rogue has a commanding grasp of film and video manipulation, despite his boasting to the contrary, just like it is wrong to assume that others are weak in comparison. Mr. Rogue wants me to shove off [and I would have after my first comment this December, if he would have simply ignored me], because I hold him accountable and regularly nuke his arguments, antics, and his closed-minded positions.
[Y]ou set out the whole argument on the Zapruder film. When you finally did comment, it was bereft of any substantial discussion of this topic; it was AGAIN an attack on me.
What is my earliest comment on the blog? 2013-12-10. Not a typo: indeed, almost one year ago. I didn't leave out the Zapruder Film. Moreover, when speaking about "masterful at disingenuous rhetoric and fraudulent gamesmanship," this would include Mr. Rogue's two postings on 2014-12-04 that radically change the subject [Top Ten Reasons: Jim Fetzer and Friends are Sunstein Shills]. Any lazy lurker can find my 2014-12-05 comment and read to discover that it walked the fine line between the article's subject and the new, disingenuous one that Mr. Rogue was actively derailing the thread into.
I want you to go away. I want you to refrain from addressing me on T&S, and I want you not to refer to me in anyway.
Then simply STFU. Ignore me, Mr. Rogue. Do not feed the trolls.
Your five-to-one and seven-to-one replies to individual postings from me have zero indication that you are sincere in wanting me to go away.
Further proving his ignorance, Mr. Rogue writes:
The whole section here [from SEO] beginning with: "The comment section is generated, the result set of a database query…" is absolutely irrelevant – this thread is not under moderation. Thus this section is again argumentum verbosium – a lengthily stretch of text having no bearing on the question at hand.
It was too relevant, ignorant Mr. Rogue, and you are absolutely wrong in your assumption that "this thread is not under moderation." First of all, any comment containing three or more links immediately goes into the moderation queue, which blows your assumption out of the water. Secondly, Mr. McKee edited one comment and removed another (either by deletion or moderation queue), further blowing holes in your assumption about the thread not being under moderation. Thirdly, if you respond (a) to a comment of yours whose link count put it into the queue & never gets published, or (b) to a comment of someone else's that later gets put into the queue: these are the conditions that juke the thread's comment sequencing and create orphans.
Mr. Rogue writes:
... when I posted something "out of sequence", it was clearly done on purpose and had nothing to do with the problem we are addressing today...
Thereby admitting that Mr. Rogue does whatever in his ludite powers to juke the readability of the thread. I posit that Mr. Rogue knew that one or both of Goldstein's comments would get sent into moderation. Wouldn't surprise me if Mr. Rogue was being a nasal-whiney tattle-tail to Mr. McKee behind the scenes ~after~ he posted his shoot-from-the-hips juking replies: "Goldstein brought up Dr. Wood's book and was plugging it, and this is against your wishes, Mr. McKee. Please do something about it! Now!" Therefore, all Mr. Rogue had to do was make sure they each had inane replies from him as children to get the comments juked.
Oh, shit! Despite mouthing the words of "leave me alone", Mr. Rogue proves his insincerity with still more "jibber-jabber deconstruction."
This entire comment is immaterial to the issue. This thread is not moderated., so this whole exercise is just Señor doing his standard distraction ploy.
Already addressed. My comment was not immaterial to the issue. Just because Mr. Rogue lacks the intellect to understand, doesn't make it bullshit.
In fact, I charge that Mr. Rogue has regularly deployed the tactic of rude participant precisely so that unhinged comments would get deleted (but not before an offspring tree was created that would go orphan to undermine thread readability). Deployed during discussions that Mr. Rogue was losing on multiple levels.
I maintain that if Mr. Rogue were sincere, he'd be able to take his own sweet, contemplative time to make one-for-one replies to any "nonsense" I might champion. But no! Mr. Rogue always shoots from the hip at least one shot immediately. Then, being too impatient to wait for a thoughtful response to be composed, Mr. Rogue comes back over time with several more shots, generally with different tactics to each as if Mr. Rogue were multiple people or multiple personalities. The purpose hasn't been for rational discussion, but to implode things if it can't be commandeered and controlled with his overwhelming posting count.
So Señor claims innocence, leaving only the blatant circumstantial evidence and grins like the conman he is because he gets out of one more tight spot. How anyone could buy his story is beyond me.
Ho-hum.
I wrote:
Juked comments are not in my agenda's best interests.
Narcissist Mr. Rogue counters:
Certainly they are when your actual agenda is to aggravate me.
My agenda is Truth (even in small nuggets), and indeed that seems to aggravate Mr. Rogue as more of a side-effect than actual plan.
If my agenda were to aggravate Mr. Rogue as his paranoid, narcissistic self wants to hype, why Mr. Rogue could expect me going toe-to-toe everywhere on everything on T&S. I'd stalk Mr. Rogue across all of his self-published links to other forums where he participates and give him the what-ho there. I'd be taking pot-shots on his blog, regardless of whether or not they got published. I'd be burying his email inboxes. I'd be creating blog entries with titles like "Willy Whitten: Professional Conspiracy Theorist", "Willy Whitten: Agitprop Disinformant", "Carnival d'WillyWhittenFuckAnus." And each of them would be followed by hundreds of derogatory, one-sided, unfounded, ugly comments that can't stand up to debate. Why, Mr. Rogue's blog sets the standard for so much of what kharma would serve back to him with my hypothetical efforts, were my actual agenda to aggravate Mr. Rogue.
But no.
I largely ignore Mr. Rogue. And he knows it. When he doesn't have the hairy balls
In conclusion, if Mr. Rogue's earnest desire is to have me leave him alone (and stop pointing out all the weaknesses to his arguments and his persona), then he must take the first step. STFU. Don't reply. He should crank some things on his blog to discredit himself further, but remain silent on T&S. And gee? His comment count and domineering ratios over E.V.E.R.Y.B.O.D.Y else on T&S gives him plenty of laurels to rest on.
//
x62 hybridrogue1 : bullshit of one flavor or another
2014-12-09
hybridrogue1
December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am
>> "[1]You've been reprimanded in other threads for placing comments where they don't belong. [2]You regularly continue discussions by needlessly forking too soon to a new top-level comment. [3]Your technique of multi-comments in response to one deviant or "bat-shit-crazy" comment often involves posting a "child" response, a "sibling" response, and sometimes a top-level response as a cap to the thread and the last words in the forum to date."~Señor – December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm
. . . .
[1] I have been reprimanded by who? By YOU! Because I did it on purpose to piss you off for your nannybitch bullshit that you are repeating now, which includes the next two points: [2&3] Which are nothing but your own personal gripes. Your gripes 1 & 2 were in fact what prompted me to piss you off for breaking Your Rules, not the rules of the forum.
So this section of your immaterial commentary is another blast of anal hurlant, having zero to do with the actual issue of a PM post sandwiched between two AM posts. In plain words another distraction.
. . . .
>> "Juked comments are not in my agenda's best interests."~Señor
Certainly they are when your actual agenda is to aggravate me. Don't attempt to evoke this lame excuse as a reason to accept your innocence in this affair.
. . . .
And you attempt to turn these words of mine back against me:
>> "if you are ever proven to be hacking the queue, your ass will be grass."
This is redefining the term "hacking", when my actions entailed no special technique of breaking into a system by stealth with expert methods.
So far just about every word you have written in your post of, December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm, has been shown to be bullshit of one flavor or another.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-08
Today on HR1blog:
7 referrals from: truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/
People may not be piping up on T&S Bridges, but they are coming over here to check on the facts
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-09
Anyone inclined to give Bridges the benefit of the doubt on this issue is quite gullible and naive.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-09
Wow!! Señor just proved me wrong!
Not by anything he said, just by showing how a later comment can be posted between earlier ones. It's to bad he had so much more to say, I would have apologized for my mistake. But of course he had to go on and on about other shit, which really sorta spoiled his victory on the other point.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 9, 2014 at 11:43 pm
I am also now replying to Señor's post of December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm. So let us see if it ends up sandwiched between my two earlier posts like Señor's just did…
"Señor El Once
December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
[Replied made to my December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. Owing to juking, I predict that it will be published at a top-level below Mr. Rogue's December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am.]"
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 9, 2014 at 11:35 pm
Señor El Once – December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
This post now appears sandwiched between my former posts of:
hybridrogue1 – December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm
hybridrogue1 – December 8, 2014 at 3:01 pm
. . . . .
So yes Señor, regardless of the jabber contained in your new post we see it mysteriously placed again, sandwitched between two earlier comments – which says more in it's material effect than any of the massive verbosity of your present comment.
I rest my case.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 9, 2014 at 11:50 pm
Señor's explanation seems to have worked after posting a reply to his December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. My comment indeed ended up sandwiched between my earlier posts!
I concede to Señor's explanation.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 9, 2014 at 11:59 pm
I DO concede to Señor's explanation, and see that I was in error about how a comment can be placed in between earlier comments even down here after the glitch has taken effect.
However the rest of his rebuke I reject in toto, as the same nannybitch nonsense he has blown at me for the entire time I have been on T&S. If it were not for the rest of his wank, I would be inclined to apologize to Señor, but his overbearing arrogance alas prevents such.
\\][//
x63 hybridrogue1 : cheesy tango when wrong
2014-12-10
hybridrogue1
December 10, 2014 at 7:30 am
2014-12-10
>> "[Replied made to my December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm comment. Owing to juking, I predict that it will be published at a top-level below Mr. Rogue's December 9, 2014 at 3:50 am.]"~Señor El Once – December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm
It did not, it appeared just below my top-level December 8, 2014 at 2:26 pm post, as another top-level.
But I suppose his prediction is close enough for rock'n'roll…
>> "Pillar # 2 of Mr. Rogue's latest SEO-is-an-agent charge is that I have the "agent IT trick" of being able to make blank comments (like on his blog.) HTML syntax is not an empty comment, even if rendered as a "blank." Mr. Rogue and the vast weaknesses of his arguments do not permit any direct replies from me on his blog, so it doesn't behoove me to write anything. Just because a comment never gets out of the moderation queue or is deleted doesn't mean that checking the box for "notify me of new comments via email" won't be honored."~Señor El Once
I understand that it doesn't "behoove" him to write anything – that still doesn't explain how he can post an empty 'comment'. The only way I can- and only on my own blog, is to write something, post that, and then Edit that and remove the text, and then 'Update comment'.
My question remains; how does Señor accomplish the same thing without having access to the dashboard as a moderator would? Note that this is not an allegation but a simple question.
>> "Mr. Rogue's argument is that the original video fakery premise only applied to manipulation of imagery ~before~ (or ~at~) the event so they could be played on the day of the event. He wants to exclude all imagery manipulation relating to 9/11 if it was "created" and/or made public ~after~ 9/11. How much "shocking" video of 9/11 was aired on 9/11? Versus, how much trickled into the public domain in the days, weeks, months (and years) after 9/11? The answers to these questions alone prove that Mr. Rogue's "after the fact" argument is pulled directly from his rear."~Señor El Once
Let's get this straight once and for all. The argument Shack makes for digital fakery is made to what was broadcast on television during the event and up to a couple weeks of the TV show "Attack on America" on MSM. And this is the "Video Fakery" argument I have disputed.
There is no doubt, and I do not dispute that years after the even that more modern video editors being in the hands of a larger public, that "video fakery" is more common place. And it is in this later era that this Orb video was produced as an AFTER-THE-FACT fake video. Many After-the-fact fake videosof 9/11 have been produced in the years since 9/11. There is no question as to this fact. I do not argue that modern day video manipulation is available on a mass market scale. But this was NOT the case in 2001. One had to have some very sophisticated and EXPENSIVE equipment, and great skill to achieve these ends back then.
Now to address the arrogance of Señor in the rhetoric used in this issue. Whether he misinterprets my meanings on purpose, or simply doesn't get it is beside the point. The same state of mind he accuses me of attends to his state of mind: Assuming the worst – guilty until proven innocent. That is both of our attitudes towards one another. And I say fucking so-be-it. There will be no reconciliation, so WTF?
This is why there will be no apologies offered to Señor. I will concede to the facts when I am wrong. But he continues his cheesy tango when he is wrong. So fuck him.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-10
One more comment, because Bridges tries to make hay out of it; I said he sat out the Z-film discussion, and he points out his few comments of 2013 during that years round of debates. I think any reasonable person would agree that he sat out the 2014 episode, and that is what I meant. But taking the cheesy lawyer stance, he bawls at me for a 'technicality'.
All I will say about that is, big-fucking-deal
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-10
Bridges squawks about my not getting email notifications for comments made on the threads.
I don't need email notifications – I get notifications directly from WordPress. And they are archived chronologically, with the full text of the comments made.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
2014-12-10
As mentioned above, I get notifications directly from WordPress. And they are archived chronologically, with the full text of the comments made.
I just collected these time/dates with the beginning remarks of each:
Dec 5, 4:45 pm > "I have been a real-time lurker on this thread, but"
Dec 6, 6:15 pm > "Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:"
Dec 6, 6:21 pm > "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 6:43 pm comment to see where it lands."
Dec 6, 6:22 pm > "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm comment to see where it lands."
Dec 8, 1:55 pm > "Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:"
Dec 8, 1:55 pm > "Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking.."
. . . . . . . .
It should be pointed out that there are two comments with differing times that begin: "Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions:" they are: Dec 6, 6:15 pm & Dec 8, 1:55 pm
This is from WordPress chronological archive!?
Dec 8, 1:55 pm now reads on the T&S thread: "Dear Mr. Rogue, Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand in the juking.."
This being in contradiction with WordPress chronological archive; It appears that the original Dec 8, 1:55 pm post was changed to the "Bravo in your speculative innuendo.."
Who is fucking with me, Señor or WordPress chronological archive?
I wrote before; I understand that it doesn't "behoove" him to write anything – that still doesn't explain how he can post an empty 'comment'. The only way I can- and only on my own blog, is to write something, post that, and then Edit that and remove the text, and then 'Update comment'.
My question remains; how does Señor accomplish the same thing without having access to the dashboard as a moderator would? Note that this is not an allegation but a simple question.
But now again this seems to be a clue to how Bridges is manipulating the comments. He could write a quick blurb like, "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm comment to see where it lands," and later come back and 'update' that with a longer complex comment – BUT only if he had the dashboard tools to do such; which are supposed to only be available to the moderator.
The more I mull this over the more my suspicion is re-aroused.
There is little use in confronting this covert entity about this again, it would just lead to more of his long winded spurious bullshit.
\\][//
x64 Señor El Once : stupidity re-aroused
2014-12-11
Señor El Once
2014-12-11
{mcb: This comment was submitted, but not published under two examples of "blank" comments: #comment-4554, #comment-4555. None made it out of the moderation queue.}
Dear Mr. Rogue,
I flat-out told you twice already how to create a "seemingly" empty comment. Viewing the source HTML at the point where my "comment-content" begins would have told you everything you needed to know. As with so many things, your assumptions are wrong. In this case, you assume that my comments are empty. They aren't; they are merely rendered so.
I would have been inclined to give you a pass on this stupidity. But it is compounded by the idiocy of your hyping of some time stamp obtains by "WordPress chronological archive".
First, of all, I have no idea what that is. Maybe you are referring to the "WordPress Reader". In my recent 10 minutes of testing, its pitfalls become clear and reminds me why I don't use it. It sucks. It is hard to get around within a thread, let alone to other articles where comments were made. Getting to last-year's Zapruder Film article was beyond my patience level. It is a bit willy-nilly with its date-stamping, preferring vague phrases like "4 weeks ago" and "one month ago" instead of publishing specifics. At one point I nagivated to an area that was interesting and possibly almost useful, but now I can't seem to find it again.
You asked:
Who is fucking with me, Señor or WordPress chronological archive?
WordPress. And yourself.
For all I know, your manually created, "damning" record introduced a copy-&-paste error or editing mistake by having "Dec 8, 1:55 pm" appear twice. Go verify it through your "WordPress chronological archive." If there be any doubt, though, the T&S blog should have been the record of final authority (with one caveat).
Señor El Once: December 6, 2014 at 6:15 pm: Allow me to put Mr. Rogue at ease on several assumptions
Señor El Once: December 8, 2014 at 1:55 pm: Bravo in your speculative innuendo regarding my "agent" hand
The caveat? The T&S date stamp reflects when the participant submitted their comment. It does not reflect when it was published and an email notification sent; this applies to comments that are initially sent to the moderation queue (like when they have too many links on T&S.) [I'll have you know that my lengthy December 9, 2014 at 4:26 pm comment on the Zapruder article, for whatever reason, was sent immediately into the moderation queue. I did not have to ask Mr. McKee to publish it.]
But in visiting this blog to post two different examples of empty comments, I see that it's been juked! Oh, what irony! And oh what glorious examples of your disingenuous nature!
You wrote:
My question remains; how does Señor accomplish the same thing without having access to the dashboard as a moderator would? Note that this is not an allegation but a simple question.
But now again this seems to be a clue to how Bridges is manipulating the comments. He could write a quick blurb like, "Reply to Mr. Rogue's December 5, 2014 at 7:09 pm comment to see where it lands," and later come back and 'update' that with a longer complex comment – BUT only if he had the dashboard tools to do such; which are supposed to only be available to the moderator.
Sure looks like an allegation to me. You are accusing me of having moderator abilities on your blog and on T&S. You are accusing me of post-editing comments on your blog and on T&S.
I'm not even going to write, "you have no proof of [moderator access]," because the fact is that you have no proof of any instances of this happening.
The more I mull this over the more my suspicion is re-aroused.
No. What you meant to write was: "The more I mull this over, the more my stupidity is re-aroused."
Everything that you've been hyping as definitive signs of agency affiliation? They unravel as your stupidity. Sure, I get the concept that some arguments that make up a premise can be destroyed without destroying the premise. At what point in the destruction of supporting arguments do you jettison the premise, you senile old fool?
There is little use in confronting this covert entity about this again, it would just lead to more of his long winded spurious bullshit.
No, the real reason there is little use is that you've handily been beaten back. Your stupidity continues to be exposed (although you do your best at a gruff and rude offense so this isn't always readily apparent.) You know and I know that you aren't as smart as you let on, or as the words that you copy-and-paste from others without understanding.
//
x65 hybridrogue1 : technological issues in the future
2014-12-11
hybridrogue1
December 11, 2014 at 7:35 pm
"First, of all, I have no idea what that is. Maybe you are referring to the "WordPress Reader".~Señor
No, the WordPress Archive is not that. Only if you have a WordPress yourself would you have access to your own blog's archive.
I will bow to your superior technical knowledge on the matter of "source HTML", and computers in general.
So I will drop the matter.
You say this in the text you finally offered on this matter; "you senile old fool?" … That's pretty funny. But I am certainly of a generation that generally is not too adept at these new technologies, and only become acquainted enough with them to put to our own personal interests. If I weren't so adverse to your personality I might seek out more of what you are talking about here. But alas, I have so many other reasons to hold you in contempt that I am not at all interested in that.
But I will keep away from confronting you on these technological issues in the future.
Thanks for the lollipops!
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 11, 2014 at 7:39 pm
By the way Bridges, I have hidden the post that you were in such a huff about. If you would rather it be displayed, I will consider letting it show again. Depends on my mood at the time.
\\][//
hybridrogue1
December 11, 2014 at 7:46 pm
I will school myself some…
http://www.yourhtmlsource.com/starthere/whatishtml.html
\\][//
x66 Señor El Once : blog readability depends on viewer
2014-12-11
December 11, 2014 at 9:45 pm
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
{mcb: Comment landed in the moderated view at the other juke location described, as expected. I do not expect this to be published.}
Mr. Rogue, I just thought I'd give you update on the readability of the comment section of the blog. You mentioned removing a comment (or putting it back into the moderation queue). When you as admin view the blog, you probably see that moderated commented followed by the offspring heirarchy tree that I generated (all also in the moderation queue). Stacked or nested all nice and neat, right?
In one of my explanations, I made the point that each participant has a unique view. The only time two or more participants will have an identical view is when none of those given participants has comments in the moderation queue. The view of a thread by any participant with moderated comments shows such comments and their offspring tree pretty much where that participant expects them.
Just thought you should know that since you sent your comment back to the moderation queue, you turned my replies into orphans in ~my~ view of the discussion and has juked sequencing.
In this instance, no one else in your vast reading audience is negatively affected by this, because it involves nothing that you (or I) care to show the world on your blog; nothing was nested underneath that is important to readership to see. But if you were to publish any individual of my nested comments to yours now in the moderation queue, you will juke the comments (further) for the reading audience.
The bottom line is that perspective does matter with regards to who you are when you view the comments.
P.S. I'm posting this with "Leave a Reply" and expect it to land plus or minus between your two postings at the other juke point:
December 11, 2014 at 7:56 pm
August 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
//
No comments:
Post a Comment