TruthMove Forum

Register or log in:

Username:

Password:

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

9/11 Truth and Division (65 posts)

51. Arabesque
    Member

    To give an example. There might be a person who is discussing controversial issue because he wants to resolve the issue with legitimate understanding. One of these provocateurs will step in and try to make it look as though the honest investigator is trying to stir up trouble by promoting one of the canonical counter-theories such as bumble planes. Since the provocateur has already established himself as a trusted "authority" on disinformation techniques, the clueless moderator gets the idea that the honest investigator is the problem and banns him form the site where the discussions are taking place.

    I had no hand in getting you banned, and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise. Apparently, you were warned and chose to ignore those warnings.

    He was banned from the STJ911 forum by Victronix for holocaust denial and asking if Micheal Wolsey was related to James Woolsey, former CIA director. He also called truthaction communists. At the time, I was unaware of his posts involving holocaust denial (yes, he was warned for this), and was surprised he was banned. And yet, he attempts to blame me for it.

    Posted 17 years ago #
52. giveback
    

    I'll take that as a yes?

    Please, expose double standards. But throwing sand in others faces as if this is a playground spat, is another thing. It shows cynicism to the process of exposing double standards, as if that process of truth cannot really happen or really have an effect. And that the only goal one can have in exposing hypocrisy is total self-satisfaction. But it can work beyond self-satisfaction.

    I'm sure we have done some sand throwing as well and I do apologize for that.

    Posted 17 years ago #
53. BrunoJTesch
    Blocked

    I'm not really sure what I would be answering "yes" to, so I can't say. As for trying to make people look like hypocrites, there has been no conscious effort on my part expended to that end on this forum.

    ---

    http://www.claudesteiner.com/osp2.htm

    Chapter 10: LIES.

    Lies are a third family of power plays. They take advantage of people's gullibility and fear of confrontation.

    Most people are extremely susceptible to lies, because as a matter of daily routine, we are lied to extensively from our earliest days. One of the most effective ways of controlling people is by lying to them; when we feel superior to someone else we seem to believe that we don't have to tell them the truth. Usually, the explanation for not being truthful to those we wish to control is that they aren't mature or intelligent enough to understand things as they really are; or that it would hurt them if they knew the truth. These excuses for lying are used by politicians in relation to voters; by management in relation to the workers; by rich people in relation to their servants; and, of course, by parents in relation to children.

    Because of the pervasive lying around us, we take lies and half truths more or less for granted in our lives. Only in very special relationships, such as when we fall in love, or when our children finally grow up, or when we speak to our therapist or minister, or when we testify under oath, do we feel that we even need to be concerned about being truthful. And usually we have lied so much that, when the time comes to tell the truth, we are more or less incapable of doing so.

    Most of us know when we are telling a bold-faced lie because in a bold-faced lie there is a direct contradiction between the content of our consciousness, or what we're thinking, and what we say. But this black-and-white, direct, and conscious contradiction becomes blurred in the other forms of lies that we use in our everyday lives. In fact, the effect of lies upon our consciousness needs to be clearly understood. Lies (our own and others) are corrosive to our minds. More than just blurring our consciousness, they undermine our capacity to be effective in the world. They separate us from reality, create paranoia, invalidate our perceptions, discount our emotions, short-circuit our Adult[1], disorganize our thinking, dull our feelings, and ultimately can drive us mad.

    Lies are the single most potent method of defeating people's capacity to understand the world and to be effective in it. Lies about products make us into wasteful consumers. Lies about politics make us citizen-sheep. Lies about each other make us incapable of loving and maintaining relationships. Lies about our work make us unproductive and resentful. Lies cause us to go along, to be obedient, and willing to believe that it is our fault we aren't happy and successful.

    In order to understand the way in which people control us, and the ways in which we control people, it is important to understand lies in detail.

    [1] http://www.itaa-net.org/ta/index.htm

    Posted 17 years ago #
54. Arabesque
    Member

    Disinformation is commonly defined as “deliberately misleading information.” According to Jim Fetzer, “disinformation... should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise.”

    A similar concept called misinformation is defined by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:

    “Misinformation is information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.”

    While disinformation requires motive and intent; misinformation does not. Jim Fetzer explains:

    “While ‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.”

    http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/05/911-disin...

    Posted 17 years ago #
55. giveback
    

    BrunoJTesch:

    I, and I'd venture to say we, certainly appreciate your contributions, as we have all engaged extensively in the past week, but sometimes advocacy relationships just don't work out and there is just nothing left to offer.

    Posted 17 years ago #
56. BrunoJTesch
    Blocked

    I believe I figured out what you were on about. I didn't get it the first time, because the accusation is wrong, so I didn't take it seriously. If you are legitimately interested in establishing and disseminating truth, then we have no conflict of interest. Stop for a moment and consider the possibility that I have good reasons for saying things which may challenge the established dissenting view on certain issues.

    I can typically back up what I say with substantial evidence. If you believe that I have posted anything which is dishonest or intentionally misleading, please address that. If you can demonstrate a pattern of such behavior, by all means, you should ban me from this site. But you will not be able to demonstrate such a pattern of behavior.

    Posted 17 years ago #
57. truthmod
    Administrator

    If you can demonstrate a pattern of such behavior, by all means, you should ban me from this site.

    Done.

    Posted 17 years ago #
58. truthmover
    Administrator

    Forum Guidelines. A work in progress.

    Truthmod, Giveback, Christs4sale, and I, the local team, had a number of lengthy conversations about this, and there was plenty of healthy disagreement on certain points. We needed to make sure we weren't going to block him simply because he presented an alternative viewpoint.

    However, this all became clear to me with Bruno's post above. Please, everyone read that post again, because it is in many subtle ways the mechanism that is used to infiltrate and gum up other discussion forums. The self-framing here is masterful, and yet quite transparent. If I hadn't seen this many times before, I might find it compelling. This was Bruno's periodic return to sounding reasonable. It was supposed to make him sound reasonable enough that some of us in here might support his continued participation.

    However, the content of his website and reputation that precedes him can not be viewed as irrelevant. Nico is not free to post here just because he agrees not to talk about TV Fakery, for instance. I could learn something from just about anyone including Nico, but this forum is not a random social venue. This is a place for people who would like to promote a selective, fact based approach to the issues, with a clear respect for the public (we are all victims), and a willingness to candidly discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of the movement itself.

    Bruno's website did not indicate that he had a similar focus. Further it indicated, and he admitted, that he was here to confirm whether or not we were an 'anti-truth psyop.'

    Unfortunately there is a predictable and intended result of his expulsion. Now Bruno can report back to his peers that we are exactly the 'bad guys' they always thought we were. But we bear this as inherent to our position.

    Sorry, everybody, if that was a drain. The conversation was not pointless by any means, and we will learn from this how better to respond next time some one approaches us in this manner.

    FYI, if Bruno decides to re-register, we will be blocking him again, and deleting any further posts of his.

    Where's Victronix? Probably just busy as she is. But I would like to say that those who attack (as distinct from critique) people we respect in the movement are not welcome here on our forum. Conveying a message by the interpretation of song lyrics may be artful, but its not any kind or reasonable discourse. His lack of response to my moderator query regarding his reference to Victronix on his site is one of the clear reasons why he was blocked.

    Thank you TruthMod for making the final call. I found your response quite appropriate. We will not be wasting time demonstrating a pattern of behavior that was just directly witnessed by all.

    Posted 17 years ago #
59. NicholasLevis
    Member

    Bruno it seems goes to extraordinary lengths in establishing that he is knowledgable and erudite, which he must be given some of his posts (don't delete the post with the Aral Sea), only to bring out low-grade disinformation (or is that 3rd grade?) like, "a lot of these sites register by a proxy service" (a well-known one used by millions of sites - maybe because they don't want their address available for harrassment?) and "TruthAction is communist" because it uses the raised-fist symbol and (gasp) red letters. His apparent native intelligence is not an excuse; it only makes him look even worse for putting out such obvious junk attacks.

    In his spirit, I'd like to point out that every website in the 9/11 truth movement and its debunkers uses URLs that are daily updated through the main domain server and the trunk in Herndon, VA, owned by the U.S. mil/intel complex. So by his logic - EVERYONE IS THEM! THEY IS EVERYBODY!

    Posted 17 years ago #
60. TruthandJustice911
    Member

    I've just had the opportunity to read what has been happening the past few days. This strikes me because it is exactly what took place within the 'organizing committee' for this proposed conference back in the summer months.

    It was a nightmare. A couple of people were attempting to inject distrust within the group and engage in never-ending arguments about ridiculous things.

    This Bruno and these other people I had worked with clearly display a pattern of organized disruption. It's like they're professionals at wasting other's time.

    Posted 17 years ago #
61. HocusLocus
    Member

    To give an example. There might be a person who is discussing controversial issue because he wants to resolve the issue with legitimate understanding. One of these provocateurs will step in and try to make it look as though the honest investigator is trying to stir up trouble by promoting one of the canonical counter-theories such as bumble planes. Since the provocateur has already established himself as a trusted "authority" on disinformation techniques, the clueless moderator gets the idea that the honest investigator is the problem and banns him form the site where the discussions are taking place.

    This strikes a chord with me, I call the tactic 'passionate ones with a clue removal.'

    I do believe there is a natural human tendency that could supply ample motivation for this kind of behavior without the straight 'paid disinfo' tack -- after all, the Internet is this in-your-face sort of medium where bullies can go on the prowl and step right in front of and between people -- without a hint of fear that something on the face might become dislocated... which can be a natural consequence of direct, uncivil and untoward behavior in real-life settings. Thus, the Internet allows a greater (and less subtle) type of 'misanthrope' to emerge.

    And with that natural tendency, enough people who are honestly and emotionally vested in the most outlandish theories -- especially those who fronted them in the first place (my own idea, my own opinion) just might represent the lion's share of what we so-I-call-it rational investigators face today. It would not take many.

    But I'm not in favor of the velveteen gloves or 'gatekeeping for truth' when what is in dispute is not merely interpretation of evidence, but base fact. For gatekeeping is another of those silly words where the bullies will try and try again to cast as conspiratorial. And when you're facing down a persistent person who (oddly and perversely) lays down misinformation over time, I honestly believe that while there are tricks one might use to spice the language for a time... when it gets down-to-point, when faced with true persistence... there is really no earthly human way to avoid ad-homeniem.

    Or taking a 'real' stand, weighing in on a matter, being direct and honest same-time.

    ---

    "This appears for all the world to be a deliberate incorrect foundation fact meme injection attack to compromise 9/11 researchers pursuing scenarios of conventional demolition explosives. Or some bizarre natural phenomenon that just happens to resemble this motive closely. From me this will garner the same response, the subject being gravely serious. One man's 'nitty ad homenim' being another's due dillegence, delivered."

    ~Hocus Locus [link #2 below]

    1. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1007... (an essay on bullies)
    2. http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2221... (passionate ones with a clue removal)

    ---

    Undivided attention is the Gold standard of bullying. It buys all the nicest things. Set against its opulent iridescence ... mere agreement is overrated, inflated currency. One can never be quite sure where agreement has been or where it will be tomorrow. Nothing might ever get done but surely we all agree on must-needs, we thinks. Or not. So learn to be an effective bully! And if you think bullying is all about violence, think again.

    ~Hocus Locus [link #1]

    ---

    "An insidious philosophical theme tends to surface -- cultivated when pointed, bitter disagreement centers on base fact. Parry to openness. Give the fellow his say, we muse, don't gang up on him now. After all (here's the poison) it's all just this-theory and that-theory after all. This is played to the hilt, especially when surrounded by those who choose to zero in on the tone and the drama, interpret it as a groundless childish rumble of sorts. The crowd steps back, falls silent or goes elsewhere.

    There will always be a need for self-restraint. But dismissing pointed disagreement as uncomfortable or undesirable conduct -- is an easy armchair sentiment to hold... but is also a Darwinian dead-end.

    In such a hypothetical world where no one even tries to draw lines, no boundaries of expectation imposed, few if any feel compelled to go off and find out, return and weigh in on the matter, form a firm personal opinion (subject to revision if called for) but nevertheless possessed of a level of surety... if this stops happening altogether, we may wake some day to find ourselves in a world where all things within reach have been placed there... and even critical venues of change and debate... such as the vote... will be 'for entertainment purposes only'..."

    ~Hocus Locus [link #2]

    Posted 17 years ago #
62. HocusLocus
    Member

    Is there some kind of five minute editing limit? How bizarre! How Draconian. ;--) Okay, pretend the paragraph above sez,

    But I'm not in favor of the velveteen gloves or going easy on 'gatekeeping for truth' when what is in dispute is not merely interpretation of evidence, but base fact.

    Posted 17 years ago #
63. Arabesque
    Member

    Since the provocateur has already established himself as a trusted "authority" on disinformation techniques, the clueless moderator gets the idea that the honest investigator is the problem and banns him form the site where the discussions are taking place.

    The passage you quoted above would be example of misinformation/disinformation in its context because the person who said it, distorted the reality of what really happened in his own situation to give the misleading impression he was unfairly banned, as I explained above. In this example, the poster is trying to give the impression that he was unfairly banned by blaming someone who had no authority or control over banning him.

    Victronix can confirm this.

    Posted 17 years ago #
64. giveback
    

    Shall we be done with the subject? If it was a drain, a distraction, why do we continue? Are we trying to encourage his return?

    We did not block him so we could malign him without his ability to respond getting in the way.

    If we want guidelines, and the guidelines are essentially about respect, then to insure that these guidelines are followed, and there is respectability in the movement, we need to respect, to all, all the time.

    Posted 17 years ago #
65. HocusLocus
    Member

    [Giveback] Shall we be done with the subject? If it was a drain, a distraction, why do we continue? Are we trying to encourage his return? We did not block him so we could malign him without his ability to respond getting in the way.

    [Arabesque] In this example, the poster is trying to give the impression that he was unfairly banned by blaming someone who had no authority or control over banning him.

    In my perception that the words 'strike a chord with me', and choice to quote one who had been blocked, RegnatorOmnium, I do not refer to this or any one incident of blocking... the paragraph just stands by itself as a pretty good capsule definition of the tactic as I see it, no matter who spoke it.

    And I firmly believe that it is not inherently impolite to quote blocked persons, especially when one is merely discussing the ideas they voluntarily contributed (and have) left behind. This goes as well for dead people. If it was otherwise, the first woodpecker (impure thought) to come along would destroy civilization (the rest of any good author's work).

    So if I should ever become hit by a bus -- or blocked -- by all means, quote me if you'd like. ;--)

    ---

    I will prescribe regimen for the good of my patients, according to my judgment and ability, and never do harm to anyone. To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug, nor give advice which may cause his death. ~from the Hippocratic Oath

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.