From: Kathy Kasten <catraja.nul> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:20:53 +0000 Archived: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:32:44 -0400 Subject: Re: Mirage Men The Trailer >Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 05:52:44 -0400 >To: ufo-updates-list.nul >From: post.nul >Subject: UFO UpDate: Re: Mirage Men The Trailer >From: William Treurniet <wtreurniet.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 12:16:55 -0400 >Subject: Re: Mirage Men The Trailer >>From: Vincent Boudreau<vincentboudreau.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 02:11:12 -0400 >>Subject: Re: Mirage Men The Trailer >><snip> >>http://www.nowandfutures.com/spew_tools.html >>It is titled: How To Detect And Bust Spew Freaks, Politicians, >>Liars, Etc. First - Learn Their Tricks And Slimy Ways: >>As we get to the fifth rule of disinformation, we can read: >>"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." >>Simply put: it would be dishonest to use the term "conspiracy >>theorist" against those who, so effectively, use the same term >>to end an argument before it even started. >>I simply wished _this_ wasn't used on the other side of the aisle >>also. >>We should know better. >Responses to my recent post, 'Was Ectoplasm Formed To Render Art >In Clouds?', could serve as a case study on how these >disinformation rules are applied. >The thread's initial post is at the following url: >http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2012/apr/m11-003.shtml >Rule 4 - Use a straw man: >http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2012/apr/m12-004.shtml >Rule 6 - Hit and run: >http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2012/apr/m11-010.shtml >Rule 5 - Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule: >Both responses emphasized the dreaded 'pareidolia' label which >would have had the effect of discouraging any further >discussion. >Rule 9 - Play dumb: >Both responses did not mention the suggested mechanism which was >even snipped out of the original post. This was the raison >d'etre of the thread. >If these two contributors are not disinformation agents >intentionally, then this example shows how inability to think >out-of-the-box can make anyone act like one. William: Just like you I have to wonder at some of the replies to posts that are considered 'out of the box' - if that is even possible in the field of UFO research. I always laugh at the attempt at shoot down either you or Ray. Isn't the purpose of this List for introducing new concepts, solutions and approaches to the subject. The laugh factor for me is many of knee jerk reactions from people who claim to be anti-knee jerk responses, usually directed at the accursed "scientific/academic community" or the "mainstream press" whose opinion is suddenly directed at the "out-of-the- boxers." Please, William, continue to "give them hell!" KK Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp