Confessions of a "Paid Shill"

Originally posted by fnpmitchreturns

By accepting the MSM explanations for all things mundane you have blinded yourself from thinking outside the box.

The devil is in the details be it mundane or not.

If the OP is using MSM as his source, and I confess that I read this the same as you did, then he's full to the gills with you-know-what. MSM is the easy-peasey, feel good, support the delusional path of least resistance and is often the hallmark of the low-experienced, supposedly literate youth corp.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns


Let me see if I can put into words what I'm thinking. The way I see it is becomes easier to add something into the canon of legitimate conspiracies than it is to take something away that was mundane to begin with. Let's take your example of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. At the time it occurred the data simply wasn't there to say it was propaganda. Over the years though that data has emerged and it has become a simple task of adding it into the canon and going from there. Now let's say that the Gulf of Tonkin incident had occurred as originally claimed. However, instead of most people believing the official story what if the conspiracy community accepted right away that it was a con job? Years later when we find out that it actually happened we would have to untangle all of these theories that hinged on the Gulf of Tonkin being a con job and try to figure out what was still viable.

It's similar to the world of academia. All peer-reviewed articles are based on research that came before it. If its found out somebody snuck through false research it can have disastrous results as the legitimacy of every study that cites that study is now in question. Whereas its no big deal if someone presents and article and it gets rejected due to lack of data but later a revision gets accepted as more data becomes available. Sure you may lose a few years of potential research but at least you haven't wasted years of research chasing a falsehood and then have to start from square one. This is why I tend to go with the mundane response. It may not get us to the truth now, but it saves us valuable time and resources and can potentially save us massive amounts of time down the road.

Replying to a post without quoting? Pffffttt....I do that all the time. I have the same explanation as the OP; if It is in reference to one specific statement, I'll quote it. If not, I won't. It has nothing to do with self-importance. I don't understand that accusation. I have purposefully not quoted the poster who brought this up.

HOWEVER.....I am more likely to think that a poster is a paid shill if they only post on one or two forums only, if they can be guaranteed to be there arguing no matter what, and if they always say the same thing over and over. When presented with evidence they cannot argue their way out of, they disappear.

OP, the art of being a skeptic is a delicate one. Most skeptics on here are rude, make fun, and add NOTHING to the thread except dissent and hurt feelings. That is not a shill to me, that is just being a jerk. Some posters have an abrupt style, which is fine, but some are condescending and downright mean. Adding this emoticon: , or this one: tends to make me dismiss the post all together as the argument of a childish twit with a superiority complex and nothing to back it up. Some people just love to argue, but don't know how to do it like an adult.

My memory of your posts, OP, is one of an abrupt individual. When somebody posts, they are putting themselves out there, and it can hurt when somebody comes along and chops it apart with all the finesse of an executioner. That is your right, not everybody can be "nice", but don't expect kudos from the posters who passionately believe.

Such is the "fun" of internet forums. But a paid shill? Naw, you don't fit the profile.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


That's what I'm saying. It's when a perceived hostility enters the picture that communication breaks down. I'll admit that I have been guilty of exuding such hostility but it generally only comes after I reach my frustration breaking point. This brings up something I've noticed and I think I addressed before in another post. I've noticed an overall increase of posts that have this emotional and vitriolic tone to them. This may simply be nostalgia but in the past I remember people actually being able to have a civil debate on here but now every topic seems so divisive and black and white. No longer can two sides in an argument achieve some middle ground. Instead people will just argue the same points over and over until they're either dead or the other side concedes from the pointlessness of it all.

Originally posted by FissionSurplus
Replying to a post without quoting? Pffffttt....I do that all the time. I have the same explanation as the OP;

I'm aware of your purposeful lack of quoting and my response to you is the same as the response to the OP.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

To summarize, put down your mirror.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by crankyoldman

 

I'm curious, why is your mea culpa post far more self reflective and lacking the condescending "I know everything and you don't" tone? Why not have the same contemplative tone in each post? Why the need to talk down to posters, belittle them with words, tone and vibrational intent, when it seem you are capable of the opposite? Why do you feel that the brow beating approach is the "right" approach to conversation and discussion and the contemplative, exploratory tone taken in this post is "wrong."

Honestly? Frustration. The first few times I explain something I try to be understanding as possible. Over time though I have found myself repeating the same things over and over again and it just gets tiring. This is especially true in cases where I have spent a lot of time and effort in putting together a thread only to have it ignored by most people.

I would suggest you read and reread your reply here until you see what you are actually saying. I'll not shade your experience, but you have said TONS about both your presence here on ATS and about a great many of folks here fitting the same criteria as you elaborated on in the OP. Pay attention to the third sentence, as it is the key.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

Let me see if I can put into words what I'm thinking. The way I see it is becomes easier to add something into the canon of legitimate conspiracies than it is to take something away that was mundane to begin with. Let's take your example of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

There you go again. Book smarts extrapolation from a low-experienced poster.

Signed,

A.B, Vietnam Veteran who Damn Well Along with Millions Other Knew It Was Propaganda.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I've noticed an overall increase of posts that have this emotional and vitriolic tone to them. This may simply be nostalgia but in the past I remember people actually being able to have a civil debate on here but now every topic seems so divisive and black and white. No longer can two sides in an argument achieve some middle ground. Instead people will just argue the same points over and over until they're either dead or the other side concedes from the pointlessness of it all.

Sorry to quote you forcing you to have to overlook that portion of this response. But, hell, what's accuracy anyway but an overblown concept of old farts, right?

This idea that disagreements have to be civil and resolve a middle ground is the typical encyclopedic response taught by most modern university-generated philosophies and carried to its extreme by modern prog rock punkists. Ian Anderson laughs at such drivel.

What is really behind this non-combative idealism is the culture which it derives. Culture is not your friend, friend.

I just became a member of ATS. I've been a follower of the site for a couple years. The majority of what is on here is the result of wild imaginations. But, breaking news hits this site as fast as anywhere. Also, if a person is willing to wade through the fantasies there is good content here.
I don't mind the wild imaginations. Every once in a while they get it right. It's good to read up on the conspiracy stuff and turn it around in your mind. That way if things start to fall in place later you are already clued in on what might be going down.
In my few comments on ATS so far, on the current Fukushima thread, I took some heat because I don't think that the cockroaches are going to be 3 feet long and ruling the West coast because of Radiation. I was polite but because I did not agree that the sky was FALLING RIGHT NOW I was part of the elite cabal trying to poison the world.
That's ok and all. It isn't the best way to discuss issues, but it's ok. ATS is the best site of its kind hands down.

reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars


What I'm trying to do is get a view of the big picture. While you may known that it was propaganda from the beginning the public as a whole would not believe you until the data backed it up. Sadly that's the way the world works. If something makes people uncomfortable they will ignore it until they can ignore it no longer. However, by forcing people to look at truth before they're ready causes them to lash out. In this case, I'd be willing to bet if over the years you told people Gulf of Tonkin was propaganda there's more than a few that said you were paranoid or something along those lines. As a result these people may have taken other things you said a little less seriously.

This is one of the points I'm trying to get across. We may know the truth or at least parts of it. But what good does it do if only a few people know the truth. Our goal should be to share the truth with the world as a whole, but they're not going to accept the truth until they have no other options. Because let's face it the truths we discuss on here are uncomfortable. That's why we need to focus on those things that can't be explained in any other way but with the truth. As long as their is a mundane answer that the public can grasp on to that's what they're going to do and they'll just regard you as another paranoid conspiracy nutjob.

Off-topic: I just want to say to you and to any other veterans who might be reading, thanks for serving.

Originally posted by AlchemicalBinoculars

There you go again. Book smarts extrapolation from a low-experienced poster.

Signed,

A.B, Vietnam Veteran who Damn Well Along with Millions Other Knew It Was Propaganda.

edit on 25-4-2012 by AlchemicalBinoculars because: (no reason given)

You know, I think it's interesting that you will essentially criticize anyone who speaks with any sort of intelligence, calling them "low-experienced" or "young" or an array of other choice phrases. This is interesting to me simply because you're a new poster who has been here for just six weeks and seem to input very little of substance in your posts besides insults and unnecessary tidbits of raucous information.

My suggestion would be to leave other member's age, education level and attitude out of your posts and focus more on the actual substance of their posts. It will make you more well respected and make you seem less ignorant than you currently are.

But, hey. That's just a "low-experienced" poster's opinion.

reply to post by Xcalibur254


You do realize that it has been found that 88 percent of cancer studies [edit: 47 of 53 landmark studies] done can NOT be replicated? These are supposedly "peer reviewed" work yet it is found to be bull dung....

During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 "landmark" publications -- papers in top journals, from reputable labs -- for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development.

Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated. He described his findings in a commentary piece published on Wednesday in the journal Nature.

88 percent of cancer studies can not be replicated

news.yahoo.com... 4216262.html

I remember when they did the Heath-Tulane studies which found the weed we can not talk about killed brain cells...
un-fortunately for the monkey he got 5 minutes of all smoke in a contained mask. I laughed so much I became asphyxiated too..... (sarcasm intended)

Originally posted by isthisreallife

You know, I think it's interesting that you will essentially criticize anyone who speaks with any sort of intelligence, calling them "low-experienced" or "young" or an array of other choice phrases.

The only ones I label that are those that have demonstrated that the label sticks. None others. In your case, time will be telling.

Originally posted by isthisreallife

My suggestion would be to leave other member's age, education level and attitude out of your posts and focus more on the actual substance of their posts. It will make you more well respected and make you seem less ignorant than you currently are.

I'll take a pass on the suggestion since all of those are features and characteristics of each poster and to ignore them would be ridiculous. Get real.

As to the respect non- issue, fook respect on forums, it means nothing except to those so deluded to believe their posts are important in any considerable way.

Originally posted by isthisreallife
But, hey. That's just a "low-experienced" poster's opinion.

edit on 25-4-2012 by isthisreallife because: (no reason given)

Label stuck, yeah, I noticed.

Do I get STARS or not? That's real respect, you know.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

 

Let's take your example of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. At the time it occurred the data simply wasn't there to say it was propaganda.

i would like to point out that there was enough evidence at the time that it was propaganda, and those who pointed out this evidence were dismissed as anti-American or communist.. hippies, etc etc..



even though later in his life McNamara did later tell the truth in "the Fog of War".. when he was towing the war party line at the time it was a deception.. that cost many thousands of lives.. my family included..



i see what your saying but...
why would we even get to the point of removing mundane truths or fallacies when truth was spoken in the first place but ridiculed? and how do we have a forum for discerning truth in the public eye at the beginning before making decisions that cost lives when the same tricks are playing out in front of or eyes? every war drum that sites that war drum should now be in question.. "we were attacked"

reply to post by AlchemicalBinoculars


Let's face it most of the theories on here have gaping holes in them. If the skeptics and the believers work together they could identify these holes and then begin on making the theory stronger. Who knows maybe they'll eventually discover some kind of truth. This doesn't get accomplished by simply screaming back and forth at each other.

Do you know what finally convinced me to join ATS? It was when I read the threads regarding Serpo. Sure you had believers and skeptics taking part in the thread but for the most part they were more focused on the truth than bickering. As a result ATS was able to expose a widely repeated hoax. This wasn't accomplished through hostility and divisive tactics. It was done through putting aside differences and focusing on what actually mattered. When I saw that I thought ATS might actually be a place that cares about the truth instead of sensational stories. Those are the kinds of discussions I'm talking about. The kind where the two sides work off each other and inevitably get concrete answers. Instead what we get are threads like this:

OP: Hey guys I just had this great idea!
Poster 1: Are you kidding? You're absolutely wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.
OP: Get a load of the shill.

How does that accomplish anything?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


That's conjecture at it's height and because I failed to use the Quote function, I can say anything I want without it being relevant to your post. Most posters - and you know this from your extensive 4,000 post + history - don't go back and check on the post not quoted, they see only what is on the screen in front of them.

Consequently, discussion gets highly skewed and the only thing that is accomplished is the poster who refuses over and over and over to use the Quote function has the whole space for his lonesome but perceived earthshattering revelations possibly driving his ego higher and higher and his own delusional self-importance to majickal distances from reality.

Funny how that works.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

Do you know what finally convinced me to join ATS? It was when I read the threads regarding Serpo. Sure you had believers and skeptics taking part in the thread but for the most part they were more focused on the truth than bickering. As a result ATS was able to expose a widely repeated hoax. This wasn't accomplished through hostility and divisive tactics.

You must have read a different set of Serpo threads, it was highly charged and often divisive.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

It was done through putting aside differences and focusing on what actually mattered. When I saw that I thought ATS might actually be a place that cares about the truth instead of sensational stories. Those are the kinds of discussions I'm talking about. The kind where the two sides work off each other and inevitably get concrete answers. Instead what we get are threads like this:

OP: Hey guys I just had this great idea!
Poster 1: Are you kidding? You're absolutely wrong. You couldn't be more wrong.
OP: Get a load of the shill.

How does that accomplish anything?

No.

From the Serpo days, ATS has grown exponentially. That's what a few million in investment will get a forum such as this one. In that growth, there are more nutcases, crazies, stupid and inane threads but still, imo, more or less the same number of threads with expository value. They are buried and I would agree that they are less discoursed than Serpo. And waaaaaay often left out of ATS-Google manipulated searches at the Internet level.

They don't sell. Nutzoidisms sell.

So, we agree and disagree accordingly.

reply to post by fnpmitchreturns

You do realize that it has been found that 88 percent of cancer studies done can NOT be replicated? These are supposedly "peer reviewed" work yet it is found to be bull dung....

That statement makes it obvious that you didn't understand what you were reading.

"88 percent of cancer studies done can NOT be replicated" was determined by PEERS REVIEWING "BASIC STUDIES ON CANCER", not by peers rehashing "peer reviewed work".
You did the same damn thing the scientists in those basic studies did:
You jumped to a conclusion!

I'm not surprised that you did such though. That's quite a common among those that believe extraordinary claims.

Your second link didn't work...

See ya,
Milt

I really must thank xcalibur254 for posting this. IMO, paid shills are abundant on this site and have stored the info herein. I liken it to the early "coming out" parades of a certain element of our society. By careful study and evaluation, this thread includes a wealth of information regarding subject, idealism and motivation! For these reasons, I would be happy to throw a star and a flag your way! Thanks again!

Originally posted by ajay59
IMO, paid shills are abundant on this site...

On what do you base your opinion? Guts? You're paid? Intuition overtoned with resonance? Unicorn channeling?