22-09-2013, 04:08 AM
Magda Hassan Wrote:Charles Drago Wrote:Feel free to respect Orling and to apply the benefit of the doubt to the workings of his mind.Yeah, and part of the Sunsteinian agenda is to cause divisions and breakdowns and acrimony in on line communities by having members turn on each other. If we let them. [emphasis added]
Feel free to ignore indications of a Sunsteinian agenda (e.g. immediate, multiple, lengthy, seemingly prepared-in-advance responses to a single challenge, etc.) in his actions here.
Some of us shall do otherwise.
This war is fought on many, many fronts.
As opposed to turn each other on?
But I digress.
So let's see if I follow the logic of your argument:
How would the "divisions and breakdowns and acrimony" which you reference be engendered other than by agents provocateur sent by Sunsteinian Facilitators to behave blatantly in character on-line so as to give away their game intentionally and thus provoke counter-attacks?
As recently as earlier today I called out a possible DPF agent provocateur thusly:
Mr. X [name withheld for this post only] exhibits the classic "no answer ever will suffice" gambit commonly employed by agents provocateur.
I haven't the slightest idea if Mr. X is acting out of malice or ignorance. Or both.
Are we dealing with Mr. X or "Mr. X"?
Again, your guess is as good as mine.
After all, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it could be Mel Blanc.
But in the final analysis, we're still dealing with duck shit.
( https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post76594 post 279)
In long-recognized agent provocateur fashion (see "Colby's" playbook over at The Swamp for a perfect example), Mr. X had attempted to goad Jan and others into an endless question-and-answer cycle focusing on the doppelganger gambit in deep political operations.
Once his game was made obvious, he cut and ran. The Mr. X identity no longer poisons the DPF well.
At least for now.
How, Magda, would you have dealt with Mr. X? Ignore him? Play into his hands by engaging him in his no-win game? Would you have blocked my post? Would you prefer that Mr. X return to DPF?
What constitutes "turning on" a DPF member? In its most common colloquial usage relevant to your point, the term refers to the betrayal of a friend or ally, as in Gary Mack turned on his comrades in the honorable JFK research community by making common cause with LNers.
In your opinion did I "turn on" Mr. X?
We are at war in a world that has walls. At times I choose to stand watch on one of them. You often take me to task for doing so, which is your right. I harbor no ill feelings toward you as a result. I think -- I hope -- you know that.
But I can't help but wonder ... Do you, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, want me on that wall?
Charles Drago
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene
Co-Founder, Deep Politics Forum
If an individual, through either his own volition or events over which he had no control, found himself taking up residence in a country undefined by flags or physical borders, he could be assured of one immediate and abiding consequence: He was on his own, and solitude and loneliness would probably be his companions unto the grave.
-- James Lee Burke, Rain Gods
You can't blame the innocent, they are always guiltless. All you can do is control them or eliminate them. Innocence is a kind of insanity.
-- Graham Greene