03-09-2011, 03:47 AM
I missed seeing Charles' post below earlier this morning. After reading it I am now more sure I am up against some sort of paranoid delusions. At the same time it is just as likely the accusations that I am some sort of plant are just ways to lead up to an excuse to dismiss me from participating here. I can't be that convincing as a disinfo. agent because I am called stupid simultaneously to being a sly spook. Let's see, if one read my research on Della Rosa's site archived here one would see I did that research 12 yrs. ago & that it deals with my own humble experiences 48 yrs. ago with JFK as a 15 yr. old. Of course that could have been my sheep dipped legend in process to make me available to infiltrate sites like this yrs. later. I have probably been blackmailed or paid off $millions to quit digging into the JFK assassination.
![[Image: quote_icon.png]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/misc/quote_icon.png)
Originally Posted by Gary Severson ![[Image: viewpost-right.png]](https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png)
I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally not about the things you list that effect everyone.
Among other things, it sends touts to peddle its lies and wave its bloody flag.
The data is insufficient for me to make a determination as to the motivations for your advocacy for the forces that "did things" -- terrible "things" -- to all men and women of conscience. Are you their witting or unwitting stooge? In the final analysis, the question is moot.
Detectable in your posts is a pattern all too familiar to those of us who have been exposed to and/or targeted by disinformation games. You appear on the blog with blazing guns aimed at our common enemy. And then you begin a subtle pull-back. It begins with the use of ambiguous language sufficient to permit you to engage in semantic games.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B]
Magda, you [suggest] I don't know what there is to be pissed off about.
WRONG! YOU asked the question in the most provocative and bellicose and inartful of manners. You chose the language -- you or, perhaps, your handlers.
(How's that for paranoid!)
Then you get personal.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B]
I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally[.]
You pick prime targets. You choose a thread on which at least two of those targets have engaged in heated argument, and you proceed to pour gasoline by offering a poorly composed series of posts (Sorensen) begging for clarification. Clarification is politely sought and politely provided. End of story?
Not quite.
Your next move is to post the Judge/Carter story in such a fashion as to make it clear to every seasoned observer of deep politics that you are endorsing a tale so absurd on its face (magically appearing airplane seats and jewelry that would support the official GOVERNMENT 9-11 conspiracy theory, extraordinary access to a crime scene, etc.) as to provoke belly laughs.
When you are sternly taken to task for your fatal lapses in judgment, you immediately cry FOUL. You plaintively ask after the whereabouts on DPF of polite, "I'm OK, you're OK" discourse.
And all the while you invite more of the same by posting the most poorly reasoned and ill-informed deep political "analyses" this side of the 9-11 Commission Report.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B]
Magda, you say cool it and then take Charles' side[.]
You bet your ASS Magda took a side! She is a warrior for truth and justice, and all of us are morally obliged to take sides in this war in which we are engaged.
To be charitable, you seem content to sit around campfires and tell sad tales of the deaths of kings.
To be analytical, you default to the side of your "government" -- whatever the hell that is -- for reasons that remain obscure. For now.
You're in over your head. Your endorsement of the Judge/Carter story is prima facie evidence for your inadequacies as an analyst of deep political events. You have been called out.
Originally Posted by Gary Severson I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally not about the things you list that effect everyone.
Among other things, it sends touts to peddle its lies and wave its bloody flag.
The data is insufficient for me to make a determination as to the motivations for your advocacy for the forces that "did things" -- terrible "things" -- to all men and women of conscience. Are you their witting or unwitting stooge? In the final analysis, the question is moot.
Detectable in your posts is a pattern all too familiar to those of us who have been exposed to and/or targeted by disinformation games. You appear on the blog with blazing guns aimed at our common enemy. And then you begin a subtle pull-back. It begins with the use of ambiguous language sufficient to permit you to engage in semantic games.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B] Magda, you [suggest] I don't know what there is to be pissed off about.
WRONG! YOU asked the question in the most provocative and bellicose and inartful of manners. You chose the language -- you or, perhaps, your handlers.
(How's that for paranoid!)
Then you get personal.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B] I was asking what the govt. did to Charles personally[.]
You pick prime targets. You choose a thread on which at least two of those targets have engaged in heated argument, and you proceed to pour gasoline by offering a poorly composed series of posts (Sorensen) begging for clarification. Clarification is politely sought and politely provided. End of story?
Not quite.
Your next move is to post the Judge/Carter story in such a fashion as to make it clear to every seasoned observer of deep politics that you are endorsing a tale so absurd on its face (magically appearing airplane seats and jewelry that would support the official GOVERNMENT 9-11 conspiracy theory, extraordinary access to a crime scene, etc.) as to provoke belly laughs.
When you are sternly taken to task for your fatal lapses in judgment, you immediately cry FOUL. You plaintively ask after the whereabouts on DPF of polite, "I'm OK, you're OK" discourse.
And all the while you invite more of the same by posting the most poorly reasoned and ill-informed deep political "analyses" this side of the 9-11 Commission Report.
Originally Posted by [B]Gary Severson [/B] Magda, you say cool it and then take Charles' side[.]
You bet your ASS Magda took a side! She is a warrior for truth and justice, and all of us are morally obliged to take sides in this war in which we are engaged.
To be charitable, you seem content to sit around campfires and tell sad tales of the deaths of kings.
To be analytical, you default to the side of your "government" -- whatever the hell that is -- for reasons that remain obscure. For now.
You're in over your head. Your endorsement of the Judge/Carter story is prima facie evidence for your inadequacies as an analyst of deep political events. You have been called out.