Disinformation Tactics

Having been labeled a disinfo agent, I think your criteria are completely incorrect.

All you have to do is ask for verifiable evidence of extraordinary claims, and point out patently obvious mistakes when it is supposedly offered.

Dunno why it took you so long to decide all that other stuff.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Having been labeled a disinfo agent, I think your criteria are completely incorrect. All you have to do is ask for verifiable evidence of extraordinary claims, and point out patently obvious mistakes when it is supposedly offered.

It's not what you do, I have no problem with that. It's the way you do it. Visit this post

www.abovetopsecret.com...

For more of what I mean in terms of the way it's done.

reply to post by coyotepoet


That's a post by you - if you're offering evidence of the way _I_ do it you could at least pick one of my fine examples!

Edit - oh - sorry - I never picked you for a disinfo agent!! But isn't owning up to it a bit counter-productive??

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

That's a post by you - if you're offering evidence of the way _I_ do it you could at least pick one of my fine examples!

I just didn't want to repeat myself while still explaining what I meant. I couldn't pick just 1 of your posts because it's the context of all of them and what's in between and there's not enough space for that.

Besides linking to that thread at least puts the rest of it in a sense of context.

reply to post by coyotepoet


Face it, Coyote, anyone that disagrees with you is a disinfo agent. Disinfo agent is something you use to shield yourself from questions and logic. And good science.
But all the people who try to pin that title on people do the same. It saves time. You don't have to read the sources noted, go through the logic step-by-step. We are all just disinfo agents and should be ignored.

But without proof, calling someone a disinfo agent is spurious. It's not nice, polite, doesn't promote goodwill, and sure as heck makes any discussion with the people who use this ploy non-productive. It stifles good debate. It's a bullying tactic. It's name-calling and petty. It's juvenille.
And most importantly, it's a lie. Yep, without proof, name-calling makes you a liar. It makes you seem untrustworthy. It makes it seem like you will believe anything, that facts do not matter with you, that research is unimportant. When someone lies to me, or about me, I am not going to believe another word out of their mouths without a heck of a lot of evidence. It makes you wrong. When you are wrong about someone, you probably aren't right about anything else.

Originally posted by coyotepoet
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

That's a post by you - if you're offering evidence of the way _I_ do it you could at least pick one of my fine examples!

I just didn't want to repeat myself while still explaining what I meant. I couldn't pick just 1 of your posts because it's the context of all of them and what's in between and there's not enough space for that.

Well it's not hard to list all my posts in that thread - there's only a singel page of them - www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Aloysius+the+Gaul

As I see it 2 are scurrilous dismissials of Matty's posting tactics - most of the rest are either explaining my position, or asking what I consider completely reasonable questions.

reply to post by stars15k

Face it, Coyote, anyone that disagrees with you is a disinfo agent. Disinfo agent is something you use to shield yourself from questions and logic. And good science.

Not at all, I don't think I've used that term outside of the chemtrail threads and the pack that runs in them. You're welcome to check my entire post history to verify the veracity of that. There's a lot of other stuff on the board that I disagree with, but the dialogue in the other threads doesn't usually degrade to the point that the trail threads do. Those threads seem to incite a special kind of vehemence on both sides. It's not about science and logic, it's about how the conversation happens, which was the entire point of the challenge post.

But without proof, calling someone a disinfo agent is spurious. It's not nice, polite, doesn't promote goodwill, and sure as heck makes any discussion with the people who use this ploy non-productive. It stifles good debate. It's a bullying tactic. It's name-calling and petty. It's juvenille. And most importantly, it's a lie.

You know, I actually agree with that. It's not playing nice with others, but neither is the way you guys conduct yourselves either (at least on those threads.) Perhaps disinfo agent is incorrect as it implies a paid agenda. As I use it (when I do) I mean it to be an indication that people are using the tactics of disinfo

www.911truth.org...

not that they necessarily are being paid to do that. To verify that all you have to do is compare the list of tactics with the way a person communicates. No more proof is needed. If the appellation bothers you don't use the techniques. Heck, I used some of those tactics myself in the design of the Challenge OP, putting forth a no-win question and so someone could (and did) call me on that (and I know that all I'm interested in is getting to the whole truth-and nobody is paying me for that.) I used the tactics to make a point as to how the tactics were being used by the population of those threads at large. Isn't what you do, constantly pummeling people for proof when they just wish to have a discussion, bullying? If it's not I don't know what is. You say it's just about scientific proof and evasion but it is still bullying.

And Aloysius:

Well it's not hard to list all my posts in that thread - there's only a singel page of them - www.abovetopsecret.com...&mem=Aloysius+the+Gaul

I meant context as a whole, not just in that thread in particular. It's nearly impossible to determine the character of a more or less anonymous person by simply looking at their contributions to a single thread.






And when I say pack, I mean pack. I'm not saying anything but an observation, but it's interesting to me that this started with an interaction with Chadwickus and grew to include Stars15k, and Aloysius. All three of you are found all over almost every chemtrail thread. Now if I were to get a response on this from someone whose name I didn't recognize from a chemtrail thread, that would be something.

Originally posted by coyotepoet

And when I say pack, I mean pack. I'm not saying anything but an observation, but it's interesting to me that this started with an interaction with Chadwickus and grew to include Stars15k, and Aloysius. All three of you are found all over almost every chemtrail thread. Now if I were to get a response on this from someone whose name I didn't recognize from a chemtrail thread, that would be something.[

Well I guess that makes you & Matty a pack too then??

I've posted why I have a pet hate for the chemtrail hoax a few times already - do you want me to post it again?

i don't know the other guys except via their posts on here - same as you - but I'm very glad to read that other people are not fooled by hysteria and bad science - good for them!

1. I hear that disinfo agents get all the hot babes. Is this true?
2. In my tiny conspiratorial mind, anyone that starts a thread about disinfo agents is likely to be one. That way they can deflect attention away from themselves and focus it on people who are actually trying to bring truth to a topic.

Just a harmless observation..........
Or is it?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

Well I guess that makes you & Matty a pack too then?? I've posted why I have a pet hate for the chemtrail hoax a few times already - do you want me to post it again? i don't know the other guys except via their posts on here - same as you - but I'm very glad to read that other people are not fooled by hysteria and bad science - good for them!

I suppose it does. Much like you are willing to have the backs of people with whom you agree, I'm willing to do the same (though I haven't seen Matty jumping in to my defense here, nor do I expect him to.)

But, since this is a thread on disinformation tactics, I suppose I should stick to the topic instead of just making this a personal vendetta/interaction:

The use of emotionally charged words is an excellent way to use such tactics as it leads the reader to associate the arguments/discussion with all of the negative connotations of the word, even if just subconsciously. I'm willing to overlook "bad science" (because I believe that that is honestly what you believe) but "hoax", "fooled," and "hysteria" are exactly those types of words.

I've posted why I have a pet hate for the chemtrail hoax a few times already - do you want me to post it again?

No, because this is not the place to discuss the validity of chemtrail vs. contrail, this is a place to discuss disinformation tactics, which are often found in spades on such threads regardless of what a person believes about the topic

reply to post by beezzer


In reverse:

2. In my tiny conspiratorial mind, anyone that starts a thread about disinfo agents is likely to be one. That way they can deflect attention away from themselves and focus it on people who are actually trying to bring truth to a topic.

Or it could just be that they want to shed light on the topic and educate people to recognize them when they see them. I don't know, you'd have to ask Indigothefish who started this topic last September. And the thread is on tactics, not agents, two different things as one doesn't have to be paid to use the tactics

1. I hear that disinfo agents get all the hot babes. Is this true?

If it is I might have to consider switching sides as I'm currently between relationships and could use a few hot babes.


BTW-I love your avatar