Deep Politics Forum

Quote:This is entirely correct.

I have spent over two decades investigating the covert operations loosely categorized as MK-ULTRA, but in reality involving dozens, perhaps hundreds, of different operations, both in the USA and the UK.

I have also personally interviewed over forty people who consider themselves to be survivors of such covert operations, either as children or adults.

The phrase "TI" (targeted individual) is exactly as described by Jim as above.

Use of such a phrase by an individual to describe themselves usually suggests that they have read some of the technical or, perhaps, popular literature in this area.

However, beyond that, whether an individual describes themselves as a TI or not, throws little light on the ultimate truth of their situation.

Jan, as I understand it, the term 'TI' is contentious even among the MC survivor community. But I'm also not sure, and invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

That said, is it not, strictly speaking, a term that's unique to discussion of MKULTRA and other related and ongoing mind control projects, much like the term 'wavie'?

It is not in general used to describe somebody who's possibly being harassed by intel in other ways that don't involve mind control, is it? (this is a sincere question)

Adrian Mack Wrote:Jan, as I understand it, the term 'TI' is contentious even among the MC survivor community.

Yes, the phrase is "contentious".

So what? It has nothing particular to do with this case, and is a clear attempt at distracting this thread away from its core issues.

Please cease and desist.

Quote:Yes, the phrase is "contentious".

So what? It has nothing particular to do with this case, and is a clear attempt at distracting this thread away from its core issues.

If it has nothing to do with this case, why is Fetzer's expert using this contentious and inaccurate term to describe Baker?

Does she need that?

Does Fetzer's expert hope that 'Judyth as TI' will gain traction with readers here?

Do you see that it is potentially as discrediting as 'I represent Judyth Vary Baker and she is being harassed by intel on behalf of big pharma, big medicine and the cancer society because she has the cure for cancer and if you don't believe it just ask Eustace bloody Mullens'...?

Do I really have to spell this out?

Something is wrong with you, Adrina Mack. I consider you a hack, a shill, a troll, a tramp. Take your pick!

Adrian Mack Wrote:

Quote:It probably had not occurred to Ed Haslam at the time to hypothesize that Judyth might be a target because she poses a threat to big medicine, big pharma, and cancer societies. But after this thread, it would not surprise me at all. I am just the least bit perplexed that you seem to have so much difficulty in sorting out between JUDYTH'S EXPERIENCES and COMMENTS ABOUT JUDYTH'S EXPERIENCES. Maybe that explains what I consider to have been some of the oddities about your posts. Just pay attention to the sources that I cite.

I'm trying to pay attention to the sources you cite but your opinions keep getting in the way.

I'd also be very interested in Haslam's response to your untested hypothesis which you borrowed from the anti-Semite Eustace Mullens, and which you seem determined to attach to a scenario that doesn't need it. Especially after all the years he spent in honest research. Perhaps you'd like to freight Haslam's work with some pet theories Larouche pulled out of his ass too.

I guess I'm just the least bit perplexed that you don't get what I'm saying so here it is again:

You are taking advantage of your role as Judyth's mouthpiece to front for the kind of bullshit that could potentially make her look worse. The facts of her harassment, the coordinated attacks by the McAdams crew, and the indication via Viklund that there is some official sanction for this treatment is all plenty enough.

But you and Jim Pt. 2 can't leave it at that, which indicates either no confidence in her ability to represent herself or a desire to drive opinion in a predetermined direction.

So which is it?

Quote:Something is wrong with you, Adrina Mack. I consider you a hack, a shill, a troll, a tramp. Take your pick!

Dr. Fetzer, the only weapon you have in trying to expose and educate people about the deep state is truth, and your only advantage in this fight is moral.

But I think your “research” is sloppy and divisive.

You don’t appear to be results-orientated.

You append bad information to good.

You foster associations and theories that are lethal to truth.

You accuse others of using the same logical fallacies that you yourself consistently employ, and you do it arrogantly.

Because I choose to believe that you do this with good intent, it breaks my heart.

Adrian Mack Wrote:If it has nothing to do with this case, why is Fetzer's expert using this contentious and inaccurate term to describe Baker?

I do not consider the anonymous psy ops expert's use of the phrase "TI" in #154 & #217 of this thread to be particularly helpful in understanding what may or may not have happened with JVB.

For instance, I certainly don't consider Jack White's attacks on Judyth earlier in this thread to be part of any deliberate intel attempt to discredit her. Rather I consider it an honest (if inappropriate in its unjustified diagnosis of a psychological condition) judgement on Jack's part, based in particular on his detailed knowledge of, and involvement with, John Armstrong's work.

Adrian Mack Wrote:Does Fetzer's expert hope that 'Judyth as TI' will gain traction with readers here?

I doubt it would do so. Once again, I consider the use of the phrase unhelpful.

Now, please let's get back to discussing the substance of Judyth's claims.

Adrian Mack Wrote:Do I really have to spell this out?

Meh - you really specialize in condescension, don't you?

Quote:Meh - you really specialize in condescension, don't you?

I don't mean to, and I'm sorry. My real specialty is frustration.

Peace.

Sorry, Adrian. You are projecting. I have shown that you specialize in ad hominem attacks, popular sentiments, guilt by association, misquotation and the non-distinction of the distinct. Take a look in the mirror. You need some serious help far beyond what this forum is equipped to provide. You are here to sabotage this thread and abuse the privileges of the forum.

Adrian Mack Wrote:

Quote:Something is wrong with you, Adrina Mack. I consider you a hack, a shill, a troll, a tramp. Take your pick!

Dr. Fetzer, the only weapon you have in trying to expose and educate people about the deep state is truth, and your only advantage in this fight is moral.

But I think your “research” is sloppy and divisive.

You don’t appear to be results-orientated.

You append bad information to good.

You foster associations and theories that are lethal to truth.

You accuse others of using the same logical fallacies that you yourself consistently employ, and you do it arrogantly.

Because I choose to believe that you do this with good intent, it breaks my heart.

Quote:Sorry, Adrian. You are projecting. I have shown that you specialize in ad hominem attacks, popular sentiments, guilt by association, misquotation and the non-distinction of the distinct. Take a look in the mirror. You need some serious help far beyond what this forum is equipped to provide. You are here to sabotage this thread and abuse the privileges of the forum.

And you, Dr. Fetzer, are no more useful than Alex Jones. This is a treadmill to you.

Quote:Secondly, our fundamental objective is for DPF to be an arena where research can be seriously discussed, and thoroughly refuted if appropriate, without name-calling or member abuse. It is acceptable to be robust and even dismissive of the arguments of other members, if analysis and evidence are provided. It is acceptable to state that a particular argument serves the agenda of the powerful, again if analysis and evidence are provided. However, since DPF is primarily intended as an arena where serious informed research can be developed and debated, it is not acceptable to describe another member as, for instance, an agent provocateur.

http://www.deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/...d.php?t=58

Adrian and Jim - can you both please abide by the forum rule above.