english  espanol

genres

announcements

commentary

coverage

creative

reposts

regions

portland
metro

willamette
valley

southern
oregon

oregon
coast

central
oregon

eastern
oregon

oregon &
cascadia

united
states

global

topic pages

9.11
investigation

alternative
media

animal
rights

anti-racism

arts and
culture

bikes/transportation

community
building

corporate
dominance

drug war

economic
justice

education

energy &
nuclear

environment

faith &
spirituality

forest
defense

gender
& sexuality

genetic
engineering

government

health

homelessness

human
& civil rights

imperialism
& war

indigenous
issues

labor

legacies

media
criticism

police /
legal

political
theory

prisons
& prisoners

resistance
& tactics

social
services

sustainability

technology

youth

actions

oregon
elections 2004

selection
2004

stop
starbucks

may day

march
20, 2004

j13 cheney
visit

ftaa
miami & soa

workers
freedom ride

wto
cancun actions

a21 bush
protests

wto
sacramento

gop
conference

week of
bombing

m20: day x

m15: day of
action

feb. 15, 2003

jan. 18, 2003

nov. 17, 2002

oct. 5, 2002

9.11.01 - 9.11.02

a22: bush protest

hiroshima flame
walk

walk for
farmworker justice

resources

animal
rights

bicycles

education

environment

faith

forest
defense

genetic
engineering

homelessness

labor

media

nuclear
issues

peace+justice

political
parties

prisoner
support

sexuality

social
services

street
medics

sustainability

technology

global imc
network:

http://www.indymedia.org/

Projects
oceania
print
radio
satellite tv
video

Topics
biotech
ftaa

Africa
ambazonia
canarias
estrecho / madiaq
nigeria
south
africa

Canada
alberta
hamilton
maritimes
montreal
ontario
ottawa
quebec
thunder bay
vancouver
victoria
windsor
winnipeg

East
Asia
japan
manila
qc

Europe
andorra
antwerp
athens
austria
barcelona
basque country
belgium
belgrade
bristol
cambridge
croatia
cyprus
estrecho / madiaq
euskal herria
galiza
germany
hungary
ireland
istanbul
italy
la plana
bristol
liege
lille
limburg
leeds
liverpool
london
madrid
manchester
nantes
netherlands
nice
norway
oost-vlaanderen
oxford
paris
poland
portugal
prague
russia
scotland
sheffield
sweden
switzerland
thessaloniki
united kingdom
west
country
west
vlaanderen

Latin America
argentina
bolivia
brasil
chiapas
chile
colombia
ecuador
mexico
peru
puerto rico
qollasuyu
rosario
sonora
tijuana
uruguay

Oceania
adelaide
aotearoa
brisbane
jakarta
manila
melbourne
perth
qc
sydney

South
Asia
india
mumbai

United
States
arizona
arkansas
atlanta
austin
baltimore
big muddy (so. illinois)
boston
buffalo
charlottesville
chicago
cleveland
colorado
danbury, ct
dc
houston
idaho
ithaca
kansas city
la
madison
maine
michigan
milwaukee
minneapolis/st. paul
new hampshire
new jersey
new mexico
new orleans
north carolina
north texas
ny capital
nyc
oklahoma
philadelphia
pittsburgh
portland
richmond
rochester
rogue valley
san diego
san francisco bay area
santa barbara
santa cruz, ca
seattle
st louis
tallahassee-red hills
tennessee
urbana-champaign
utah
vermont
western mass

West
Asia
beirut
israel
palestine

Process
discussion
fbi/legal updates
indymedia faq
mailing lists
process & imc docs
tech
volunteer

newswire article

17.Dec.2002 00:34

SPOTTING DISINFORMATION

author: Diogenes

This is a handy reference tool for
spotting trolls and other lower life forms. Given that Indy,
and other independent open forums, are increasingly the
targets of various members of the sell-out classes this is a
nice reference for tuning up your BS detector.

Spotting Disinformation - The rules of
the "Game"

Courtesy of   Walt  July 15,
1998

*  1.  Hear no evil, see no evil,
speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it
-- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If
it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to
deal with the issues.

*  2.  Become
incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and
instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic
as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme.
This is also known as the "How dare you!" gambit.

*
3.  Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing
issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or
evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other
derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
This method works especially well with a silent press, because
the only way the public can learn of the facts are through
such "arguable rumors". If you can associate the material with
the Internet, use this fact to certify it a "wild rumor" which
can have no basis in fact.

*  4.  Use a
straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's
argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look
good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you
may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest
aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and
destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges,
real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion
of the real issues.

*  5.  Sidetrack
opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known
as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods
qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal",
"left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals",
"militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates",
and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of
fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with
issues.

*  6.  Hit and Run. In any
public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the
opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely
well in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where
a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without
having to explain criticism reasoning -- simply make an
accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never
answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the
opponent's viewpoint.

*  7.   Question
motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to
imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces
the accuser on the defensive.

*
8.  Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or
associate yourself with authority and present your argument
with enough "jargon" and "minutiae" to illustrate you are "one
who knows", and simply say it isn't so without discussing
issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

*  9.   Play Dumb. No matter what
evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing
issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense,
provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or
support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

*
10.   Associate opponent charges with old
news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any
large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make
charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt
with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a
straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the
initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of
validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be
associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply
being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so
much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the
original source.

*  11.  Establish and
rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element
of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with candor
that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that
opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of
proportion and imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't
so." Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done
properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for "coming
clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing
more serious issues.

*  12.   Enigmas
have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events
surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events,
paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes
those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual
issues.

*  13.   Alice in Wonderland
Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards
with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any
actual material fact.

*  14.  Demand
complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to
solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best
for items qualifying for rule 10.

*
15.  Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned
with contingency conclusions in place. (Can you say Rush
Limbaugh - sure you can - just don't choke.)

*
16.  Change the subject. Usually in connection
with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to
side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial
comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more
manageable topic. This works especially well with companions
who can "argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the
discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

*  17.  Emotionalize, Antagonize, and
Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt
your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which
will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and
generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not
only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first
instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the
issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on
how "sensitive they are to criticism".

*
18.   Ignore proof presented, demand
impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play
dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an
opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and
demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by
(it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be
something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld,
such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid
discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be
critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that
witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by
government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

*  19.  False evidence. Whenever
possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful
tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from
the fabrications.

*  20.  Manufacture a
new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s),
leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or
testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must
actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

add a comment on this article

8 Traits of a
Disinformationalist

17.Dec.2002
01:23

Know Thy Spook

Run, spook, run
http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=126353

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

DISINFORMATION - here,
courtesy of Mike Sweeney's web site that frankly, we can't hype
enough:  http://www.proparanoid.com/ a
site we consider THE final word in resources for detecting
disinformation artists and also for countersurveillance information
and his great newsletter, are the Eight Traits of a
Disinformationalist.

If you are a regular reader of some
boards and groups you will no doubt, upon studying this, be able to
start seeing when and where disinfo artists crop up. You'll also
note a lot of boards/groups fill up with old news, rehashed news,
CNN reruns, the kind of crap that basically pushes good stuff to the
bottom of the board, or obliterates it entirely. That is their whole
M.O., by the way, to get the good stuff out of sight. It works, too.
Most people buy it lock, stock and barrel. We won't name names (for
a change!) here but on some of the better well known boards, you can
pretty much figure out who is there to just dump junk up on the
board: blah blah kind of stuff they cop off of Fox News that
frankly, you or I could get from Fox News, thank you, without them
regurgitating it up on the chat group or message board. You know
what and who we are referring to, most likely. The spy and
counterspy site  http://www.chymerick.com/orgs/spyvsspy/
also contains excellent material on detecting a mole or
disinformation agent who has been put on a board or a discussion
group in order to raise hell with it, scare off truth seekers and
legitimate investigators, and discredit sincere Patriots and 'do
gooders'. There's more of this going out there right now than you
can shake a nightstick at. There's slew of people out there who want
to distract you from what is really going on 'neath your nose.

We raise regularly eybrows for our shrugging off Enron as a
'dog and pony show' and giving similar scant attention to the Wag
the Dog made for TV Afghanistan movie, but in our humble opinion,
that's all it really is. The war's been pre-fab manufactured in
order to effect the agenda they want to take place here at home.
Tack on the Super Bowl, and you've got a captive audience placated
and distracted so you can carry on about the business of turning our
country into a police state, a 24/7 surveillance state, and rape
what's left of our Constitution.

You wonder why we keep
cramming tradecraft down your throat about how to detect if you are
being watched, followed, monitored or under orchestrated
surveillance? It's because we are trying to throw you a life
preserver, stupid; the tools to use to save yourself. Time will tell
how many people wise up to it. Big Brother and his NWO toadies count
on you staying dumb. We think you can do better. Don't fail us....

1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or
provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of
references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and
the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies
their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any
further justification for credibility.

2) Selectivity. They
tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the
hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of
opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are
known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become
argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the
commentator as well.

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface
suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic
with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions
in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to
vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were
likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with
the reason.

4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in
self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course,
this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely
be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where
professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will
infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or
other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for
'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way
believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold
such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might
think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every
topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one
might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their
actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6)
Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an
unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in
the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely
stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how
condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become
emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo
artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if
responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity
throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble
maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to
pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional
communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to
'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as
they might be able in a real face-to-face
conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and
indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an
emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of
criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will
generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any
adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that
game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others
think might seek to improve their communications style, substance,
and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is
also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true
self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or
it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they
really root for the side of truth deep within. I have noted that
often, they will simply cite contradictory information which
neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player
claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills
(spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school
education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a
college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular
topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Recently discovered, with
respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three
ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or
other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation: 1) ANY
NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an
IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can
afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do
some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT
- FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards
truth. 2) When dealing in more direct ways with a
disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will
usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down
team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even
enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain
of command. 3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be
seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours
delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the
targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more
important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious
truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.

http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=126353

praise

17.Dec.2002
04:09

who will I be today?

I haven't read either of these posts yet, but
I see the idea is a good and necessary one.

I'll see if
I can find "Cheryl's Field Guide to Right Wingnut Poseurs" and some
other cognitive tools a little later.

That isn't what this is
though...

17.Dec.2002
12:43

Trilox

"In any public forum, make a brief attack of
your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer."

Newsflash to you genius, its too bad Portland Indymedia
isn't a public forum because then we could debate different points
of views. Instead, this is a privately owned "news" (I use that term
loosely) website where left-wing liberals all come to pat each other
on the back as they tell their lies and half truths to each other in
order to somehow compensate for the hypocritical consumerist
lifestyles they lead.

So, needless to say, don't even try to
play this off as a public forum because if thats what it was then
people wouldn't constantly be censoring my point of view just
because they don't agree with it...

Field Guide

17.Dec.2002
18:49

AP

We already have our first fraud!

Do you know how indymedia was formed?

Do you
know WHY indymedia was formed?

Was the famous socialist
Albert Einstein simply a "left-wing liberal", and is it it justified
to use such words as a pejorative?

www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

Do you condier ad
hominem attacks to be a rational form of argumentation?

=====================================
Guide
to Rightwingnut Posers
by Cheryl Seal (updated 2/11/02)

=====================================

The woods are full
of lurking rightwingnuts. By rightwingnut, I mean the sort of
deluded soul who worships John Ashcroft as a sort of "preliminary
second coming" and who will support the corporate bigwigs to the
bitter end, even as said bigwigs are robbing these same loyal
supporters of every last dime and shred of security they have left.

----Alas, there is a new class of rightwingnut out there
that imagines itself "clever" (unfortunately, when you are talking
rightwingnuts, this is a contradiction in terms). Instead of going
for the direct approach -- sending obscene notes or threatening
those who challenge Bush and his pals with bodily harm -- this type
tries to play "subtle saboteur" -- or poser, if you prefer.

----There seems to be about three main strategies used by
these folks -- I am sure there are other variations on the theme. In
fact we should start a "field guide to posers" here at the site, and
have our alert readers add notes and "sightings" to the guide as we
go along). Here are the three I have identified:

----1. The
institutional poser. This species can usually be found hiding in the
bushes of an "institute," (Cato Institute, et al.), "foundation,"
(Heritage Foundation, et al.) "grass roots group" (ex. "Citizens for
Sensible Energy Solutions," "Greening Earth Society," etc.),
college-based "think tank" (Baker Institute, Hoover Institute,
etc.)., or with a pseudo-scholarly journal (Global Warming Journal,
funded by the Coal barons). When you get a good look at this crowd
through the binoculars, you soon notice that the bulk of their
sponsors and founders are corporations. Or, you discover that the
"experts" on foreign affairs are former pharmaceutical execs, while
experts on climate science have degrees in business, economics, or
biology.

---- 2. The "Man on the Street" Poser. These are
the folks who are mobilized to give the impression of "critical
mass" behind the rightwingnut movement. They can be found skewing
polls (they even have a term for this activity now -- "freeping."),
haunting progressive web sites where they put up postings designed
to "educate" the misguided progressives, dialing up call-in radio
shows, and in general popping up whenever a call for a "man on the
street" opinion might give them a foot in the door. (It's kind of
scary, actually -- if you go to the Free Republic site, you will
find that they offer tips for organizing these efforts to make the
few look like many, including how-tos on stacking polls.) Often,
when these folks call into talk shows like C-SPAN, they will call in
on the Democratic or Independent line and then proceed to either
read their manifesto outright, or will pretend to be a "concerned
liberal", whilst trashing everything non-rightwing. Some even read
from prepared scripts -- you might actually hear the same basic
script with a few variations read several times in the course of a
3-hour call in show, if the posers have decided the topic is really
threatening to them! After a while, you can spot this species pretty
easily. Especially when they stumble repeatedly over the big words
in their scripts. Or when, to give themselves added credibility,
they claim to be professional types and clearly are not -- like the
C-SPAN caller with horrendous grammar ("Them people don't never...
") who claimed to be an English professor!

---- 3. The
Provocateur Poser. This species of poser is becoming more common as
the public becomes more skeptical of the rightwingnuts' direct
message. These are furtive, definitely hostile critters, devoted to
trying to foment discord and sew doubt among people who hold a
non-rightwingnut point of view. There are several subspecies:

----A. "The missionary" provocateur. This type seeks
opportunities to convert us infidels. To do this, they will write
letters to the editor of a publication or site, claiming to be a
"regular reader." They then express "concerns" over some article or
letter that has set the rightwingnut buzzers and bells off. The way
you can pick these characters out from the sincere readers with real
concerns is that they all launch into the same party line, either
directly or weaving it in to their interchanges (in the case of a
forum). Their aim is to try to discredit information by casting
doubt on it in the minds of at least some other readers, and
converting them to the "right" point of view. Many Institutional
Posers exhibit missionary poser behavior. These are the ones who
work at seeding news outlets with letters and press releases that
sound authoritative by signing them (for example) "So-and-So, Cato
Institute," or "Dr. So-and-so, Ph.D." (of course the Ph.D. might be
in elementary education and the topic nuclear reactors!). The
pseudo-science babble put forth by some of these folks is amusing to
the well-informed, but can sound convincing to people unarmed with
the facts.

----B. "Hysterical liberal" provocateur. This
sort sends in letters or makes calls to radio talk shows in which
they pretend to be an "out of control liberal." The idea being, of
course, that anyone hearing or reading this performance will be
turned off on all liberals (see, they really are all crazy and
dangerous!).. The protestors at the Seattle WTO say they were
sabotaged royally by this type of poser and that many (though of
course not all) of the window-smashing incidents were actually
perpetrated by "hysterical liberal" provocateurs. Some weeks ago, I
heard a guy call into C-SPAN (or it may have been NPR's Talk of the
Nation) and launch into an obviously contrived routine, pretending
to be a paranoid schizophrenic environmentalist wacko who believed
the sharks are rising up against the world because of
anti-environmentalism. The person I was with at the time happened to
have worked at a state mental hospital for several years. He laughed
out loud and said "That's the kind of phony act you'd hear from guys
trying to get out of the army!" What's even more laughable is that
an alarming number of leading rightwingnuts (as in Jerry Falwell and
Pat Robertson) are real, potentially certifiable paranoid
schizophrenics!

----C. "Troublemaker" provocateur. This type
tries to get people within a group pissed off at each other, or
tries to manipulate an editor, forum participant, etc. into a
compromising position. The theme here is discredit, divide and
conquer, and/or annoy the hell out of progressive folks. In one
instance at a forum I know of, a provocateur kept engaging another
forum participant in a dialogue, seeking to draw out incriminating
comments that could possibly be construed as "unpatriotic." When the
unwitting progressive forum participant finally fell into the trap,
he was soon paid a visit by the Boys in Black (FBI). In another
instance, someone sent a supposed study by an institute in
Pennsylvania that purported to prove that Bush's IQ was far less
than any other presidents, while Clinton's was highest. I did not
bite, because a little preliminary research revealed no such
institute, and in any case, the IQ scores seemed a bit contrived (I
don't believe Clinton has a 180 any more than I believe Bush is a 98
-- ignorant, yes, genetically stupid, no). But several liberal sites
ran the link and were promptly exposed in an ensuing article that
was strategically circulated. The worse troublemaker provocateurs
are the malicious ones who infiltrate sites where people go to feel
safe -- like one pregnancy forum in New England a young mother I
know participated in this past year. Once into the site, one
troublemaker rightwingnut started posting pictures of aborted babies
and threatening messages. I mean, how low can you go -- picking on
pregnant women, and not only that, but those who kept their babies.
What made them a target? Some of them had expressed a reluctance
when questioned by the poser to condemn other women who did believe
in abortion.

----The bottom line with these posers is that
they all use deceit to get their message across. It seems to me that
if you truly believed in your position, you would not feel you had
to sneak it under a cover or create fronts to appear to be something
you are not.

----Anyway, we have received two prime examples
this week of posers. The first was in response to the "Playing with
Nuclear Fire" article. The second was in response to my "daring" to
present science-based info on global warming.

----Sample
number one is an unsigned letter that definitely falls under the
"hysterical infiltrator" heading, although it could also be
described as having "missionary poser" undertones.

----
Missionary/hysterical liberal example: "Nuke-you-lar! Nuke-you-lar!
Nuke-you-lar!"
----"In fact, radiation-contaminated materials,
like spent rods and practically everything else in a decommissioned
nuclear plant, whether it be for boiling water (honest to pity,
that's how nuclear power is generated, by boiling water) to
manufacturing warheads, are indeed dangerous to be exposed to for
long periods of time, and will remain that way for tens of thousands
of years. About the only safe disposal place right now is into the
sun. (What a waste of resources!) The second safest would be to
drill a really deep hole in an extinct volcano and send it all back
where it came from, into the Earth, where it can all mix back up
again."
---- This poser could have at least read my article -
which clearly referred to high-level wastes. In any case, this
fellow's knowledge of nuclear power was obviously obtained from some
rightwingnut pamphlet: "Experts Prove Radioactive Wastes Can Be GOOD
for You!"
---- "And yes, I noticed that oil-slick Dick's energy
plan makes absolutely zero provision for disposal of nuclear waste,
since he of course is also in the front pockets of the nuclear
energy CEOs, in fact, he has his hands in the pockets and vice versa
into everything EXCEPT the alternate-energy industries, since those
will require investment and research before they can make money, and
worse (from his point of view), they can't be monopolized. Wind,
water, and sun is free."
----Here the guy purports to criticize
Cheney, then uses Cheney's own party line, which is that "alternate
energy" (maybe Bush wrote this himself) is really useless because it
would take too much research and cash to become viable.

----"However, low-level radioactives are a long, long way from
the most dangerous chemicals being transported by rail. Liquefied
Natural Gas, LNG, transported under pressure is the most powerful
chemical explosive yet invented, hundreds of times more destructive
than the equivalent mass of TNT. Chlorine gas is also transported
under pressure, and a ruptured chlorine tank (or tanker) could kill
everything for miles, turning the moisture in your lungs and eyes
into hydrochloric acid. The various hydrazines are shipped by rail,
which is not only explosive when exposed to anything containing
oxygen, not only a deadly poison, but a carcinogen in even the parts
per billion range. (While working for NASA, I helped design crash
"proof" containment for Poison A and transport-grade explosives,
designed to withstand a head-on collision at a combined speed of 100
mph, but nothing is perfect.)"
----If this man indeed were a
scientist and worked for NASA, he would most certainly know that
high-level nuclear wastes are more dangerous than any of the
chemicals he mentions, which though indeed very dangerous, would not
cause a fraction of the damage of a single spent rod pool disaster
-- nor would the effects last tens of thousands of years! Instead,
he doesn't seem to even know that there are different types of
radioactive wastes!
----"And low-grade radioactives cannot be
made into a bomb. Period. "Weapons grade" uranium and plutonium just
means regular old purified metal without the rock and dirt and slag
and crud in it. "Enriched" radioactives are necessary to even start
on atomic weapons, and that stuff is very expensive and very
carefully guarded."
----This incredible mishmash of
misinformation must be made up as he goes along!
---- "(Biggest
danger: there are hundreds of pounds of that stuff already stuffed
into firing balls floating around the former Soviet Union, and no
one has a clue where. So what does the nose-picking drunk do? Pulls
out of treaties intended to track down and recover the stuff, in
order to fan the flames of fear for his stupidassed campaign-payback
missile program, never mind that a Chechnyan terrorist wouldn't know
a missile if he tripped over one, but is easily capable of
commandeering a junk fishing boat with a hold big enough for a Fat
Boy sized dirty bomb.)"
----Now the guy is warming up to the
"hysterical infiltrator" part of the pitch!
----"As for national
nuclear security, plbplbplbplb. You can download the plans yourself
from just about any web site. For that matter, you can get most of
it in hard copy from your local library. So what? You can get the
plans for building a race car just as easily. Tell me you can build
a race car from scratch -- and you can buy most of the parts for a
race car at the local Automart. The sensitive and expensive
electronic parts necessary even to build the precision trigger, on
the other hand, are not something you'll find on E-bay.

----"It's not the information, it's the infrastructure. And
that goes double for first-world countries. Think how easily a major
storm can reduce us to stone-age tools. Now consider if there's no
fuel to run the manufacturing plants to produce the tools to make
the repairs, or get the delivery trucks on the road, or make and
supply the medicines and the clean water and the communications,,,,
Oil-Slick doesn't care, he's at death's door already. All he wants
is more money right now.

----"My personal preference for a
use for the low-grade radioactives? Plant them in the center of all
the "holy" places that wars are always being fought over, from
Jerusalem to the Southern Baptist churches. The more often someone
goes to pray to their invisible ghosts, the more radiation damage
they take. Darwin award. That takes the genes for stupidity and
gullibility out of the race within two or three generations."

----So as his grand finale, he polishes off his masterpiece with
the "troublemaker" approach, pretending to be a radical progressive,
who, of course has got to be a vicious heathen who hates all good
"God-fearin' folks", right?

----Sample two is an example of
the institutional poser with a strong dose of troublemaker
provocateur thrown in. Although the name was signed, I will not
embarrass the writer by including it. Unlike the rightwingnuts, we
here at Unknown have got some sensitivity for others.

----Institutional/troublemaker poser example:
----"I've
started reading through your site quite frequently. I appreciate
evident effort you put into gathering non-mainstream news, and I'm
glad to have a more information about current events."
----This
is a missionary poser type hook. The reader is our "friend" and
"admirer."
----"I read "Cheryl's Daily Diatribe", and I have to
say, it's not misnamed, at least not on some of the points. I am
concerned about the substance of some of your causes (but not your
editorial contributions, they are certainly substantive). The
example that caught my eye is global warming. Almost all of the
press on global warming is political or regulatory in nature.
Scientific results regarding this issue have not been prominently
published in the mainstream press for years, and, on the few
occasions where hard science is cited, it is usually misappropriated
to suit the author's point-of-view."
----This poser wastes no
time starting to spout the gospel according to the coal-industry
sponsored "Greening Earth Society!" Of course, she doesn't bother
questioning why scientific results (which abound) on global warming
have not been published in the mainstream press. Do you get the
sneaking feeling that her claim of having read my articles -- which
deal constantly of late with how and why industry-unfriendly
information is suppressed -- is completely made up? She was probably
forwarded this article by a fellow wingnut this week and had never
clapped eyes on Unknown News before then.
----"From a scientific
perspective, "global warming" is, at best, a speculative theory.
Current warming trends have numerous possible explanations, some of
which have better scientific underpinnings than the generic
greenhouse gas explanation. This is one issue where public policy
has raced far ahead of research, much less conclusive evidence. Even
if global warming was regarded as fact, it is by no means obvious
that a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions may have the desired
effect."
----This propaganda line is take almost word for word
from the stock stuff disseminated by "Greening Earth Society" and
other fossil-fuel industry "global warming" sites. I don't think it
ever occurs to posers that some of us might be familiar with the
source of their corporate spiel -- if so you'd think they would try
to be a little more creative and at least paraphrase a little!

----"H.L. Mencken guides us, 'For every complex problem, there
is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.'"
----Yep, and
the rightwingnuts seem to hit on it every time!
----"Therefore,
bitter editorials about environmental or energy policies may fall
wide of the target. It is almost certainly true that energy demand,
and the associated waste heat, is as big a concern as emissions from
energy production. Very few, if any, plans actually address the
demand side of the global warming issue."
----Gee, I wonder why
that would be?? Could it possibly be that corporate lobbyists block
every effort to create deterrents to overconsumption? Like the
little trick of failing to levy any kind of deterring tax on SUV
ownership, or McMansions (with their 12 foot ceilings and 3,000-foot
plus spaces guzzling heating oil and gas).
----"What's worse,
world fuel supplies, including natural gas and fissionable
materials, are finite resources, and estimates from legitimate
sources on fuel resources range from 30 years (even for Uranium) to
3000 years."
----All the more reason to shift to another energy
source now.
----"Clearly, this is a complex issue. The focus
should be on continued research, and efforts to improve the
situation should be broader in scope."
----Spoken like a true
Bushite! In other words, we must stall, stall, stall and let the
next generation deal with the problem!
----"ENERGY EFFICIENCY
AND PETROLEUM DEPLETION IN CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY:  http://www.binghamton.edu/
econ/ wp00/ WP2001.pdf."
----This is the site the writer is
affiliated with, although I must point out that her name is not on
the cover page. If you click on this, you will discover that the
site has absolutely no scientific connections -- it is an economics
policy program! Sort of like Bush the MBA being enough of an instant
expert on Global Warming to trash Kyoto!
----"The DOE is even
pessimistic:  http://www.fe.doe.gov/ oil_gas/
reports/ accel_dep/ foreword.shtml."
----If I were the DOE I
would be pessimistic too!
----"A doomsday site that actually
bothers to support their editorials with citations:  http://www.dieoff.org/."

----She intentionally forwards the reader to one of the least
scientific progressive global warming sites out there (maintained by
an economist). It has a mildly "hysterical liberal" feel to it
referring to the energy crisis as fossilgate, with its URL
containing the words "dieoff." Every article there is stale, in
terms of science, dating to 2000 or earlier. If this poser seriously
wants some citations on the reality of global warming,, I will be
glad to provide them -- about 1,500 of them, in fact, and those are
just the articles I myself have read in the past four years, all
from hard core science journals, none from "economics web sites" or
even from nontechnical environmental mags like Whole Earth. But, if
she really had been a regular reader of Unknown News and of my
column, she would have know that my current "day job" is as a
science abstractor and she probably would have modified her tactic.

----So, any of you out there who have had your own "poser
sightings," send in your notes! We will keep adding to the "field
guide!"

http://www.unknownnews.net/cs020602.html

bust out the tinfoil
mama,

17.Dec.2002
21:27

jungle jim's comin' home

This post bear's the distinct scent of that
UFO guy.

Are the FOIA MOD docs not too interesting this
week?

Think for
yourself...

17.Dec.2002
21:31

Trilox

It was real easy for Diogenes and AP to copy
and paste someone elses thoughts on the subject. I find it
interesting that neither one can even put together a few paragraphs
of their own...

the most precious
resource---time

18.Dec.2002
03:15

AP = Already Published!

Einstein used to wear the same clothes every
day to avoid wasting time on trivial decisions.

I post
other peoples compositions when I feel they've done a better job
than I could. It saves me wasting a lot of time.

======================
When I wrote these
things- [these instructions to the embassies to frame Arabs for
Israeli terrorist attacks on U.S. targets in Egypt] - I still didn't
know how crushing is the evidence that was ALREADY PUBLISHED
refuting our official version. The huge amounts of arms and
explosives, the tactics of the attack, the blocking and mining of
the roads ... the precise coordination of the attack. WHO WOULD BE
FOOLISH ENOUGH TO BELIEVE that such a complicated operation could
"develop" from a casual and sudden attack on an Israeli army unit by
an Egyptian unit?

- Moshe Sharett, Prime Minister of Israel
1954 & 1955.
======================

I spend
more than enough of my precious time composing point by point
rebuttals to the lies of debate stifling agents...

Be
thankful.

Darwinian selections for
explanatory fitness

18.Dec.2002
03:30

AP

addendum:

Using the name "confab", I
posted rational scientific arguments AGAINST the likelihood of
extra-terrestrial intelligent life, based on the Drake equations and
the Space-Travel-Argument.

So please don't try to poision
the information wells with your appeals to ridicule and guilt by
allegations of association.

Trolls use the book of fallacies
as a guide to producing spin, so I'm not surprised by that response.

Another essential item in the cognitive toolkit:

Logical Fallacies at the anti-Nazi Nizkor project
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

?

18.Dec.2002
03:55

John

How do you know they can't?

Are you
the same Trilox whom I see so frequently?

If so, how have
you managed to miss Diogenes' and AP's other posts?

If not,
upon what grounds do you claim authority on their composition
styles?

If it were true, why would it be interesting?

You Know Your Subject
Quite Well

18.Feb.2004
08:10

Maggie
[email-masked]

My compliments! You know your subject quite
well and have defined it with perfection. It should be requred
reading for everyone everywhere!

http://yahoo!groups:Radical_Right/

add a comment on this
article