26-12-2010, 07:28 PM
Charles Drago Wrote:Peter, et al,
Do these tactics put you in mind of anyone:
Complete disregard for the critical questions getting to identity and motive.
Flooding the thread with endless recitations of long-debunked disinformation.
Ending erudite if sophistic screeds with gutter language.
Most significantly, the all-important challenge to engage, engage, engage ... in other words, prolong the long-settled debate so as to dignify its myriad sophistries and outright lies.
This is the stock-in-trade of agents provocateurs such as those who have found save haven at and, in many instances, now rule the EF. The many entities who write under the "Colby" identity engage in these operations on a routine basis.
The emergence of "Thompson" in the immediate wake of the Bronstein hacking/hijacking of this forum, when coupled with "Thompson's" subject matter -- the tobacco holocaust in which the historic "Colby's" father played a Mengele/Goebbels hybrid role -- give away this provocation.
"Thompson's" masters are playing a win-win game: If "she" remains, the disinformation spreads as the bandwidth shrinks; if "she" is booted, "Colby," Burton, and their gang of thieves at EF will be shouting about yet another instance of this forum banning someone who does not spout the true owners' shared party line.
Ladies and gentlemen: I submit to you that, in my highly educated and Constitutionally-protected opinion, there is an overwhelming case to be made that "Carol Thompson" -- whether a real person, a cover identity, or both -- comes to the Deep Politics Forum as an agent provocateur.
"Complete disregard for the critical questions getting to identity and motive."
Evidently you believe that smearing people as holocaust deniers invalidates their scientific evidence.
"Flooding the thread with endless recitations of long-debunked disinformation."
Who debunked it and where? Certainly not in any Surgeon General report, which all evade this evidence by stonewalling.
"Ending erudite if sophistic screeds with gutter language."
Explain any so-called sophistry.
"Most significantly, the all-important challenge to engage, engage, engage ... in other words, prolong the long-settled debate so as to dignify its myriad sophistries and outright lies."
Cite examples of supposed "sophistries and outright lies." (Ha! The truth is that you don't have any. You are merely trying to pretend that disputing the say-so of authority is automatically a lie.) Furthermore, in REAL science, debates are not settled by censoring alternative hypotheses. In REAL science, debates are re-opened by new evidence, which is then freely discussed.
As for Colby, he's a perfect example of a strawman who works for the anti-smokers. All he does is snivel that he doesn't believe, while his fanatical inquisitors froth at the mouth with rage at a mere refusal to submit unquestioningly to their religious dogma. At no time do Colby or any of his ilk attack anti-smoker scientific fraud. Their only purpose is to serve as theater, to deceive the public that the pro-smoker side has no strong arguments to present.
And if someone appears who does have strong arguments, they get banned and censored.