peacepink

Worldwide Campaign to stop the Abuse and Torture of Mind Control/DEWs

Shills - and how to recognise them( a highly recommended article)

Shills !We don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize them!!

Quote:
Below is series of statements taken from H. Michael Sweeney's 'Disinformation Playbook'. I have taken what I feel to be the most relevant assertions and observations, and embedded my own comments and observations to profile the common disinformant; as the full unabridged essay is very long and is not wholly relevant to this forum.

According to the above, some of the most recognizable traits of a Disinformant or 'Cointel Operative' are:

Avoidance: They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.

Selectivity: They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well. Side attacks are relatively common though too, where the disinformant will select commentators to attack on a peripheral basis, to help camouflage their strike on a single target.

Coincidental: They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally, perhaps with a new controversial topic, and with no prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular forum involved. They simply appear, and start their activities without delay or interest in the temperament of those around them, or the nature of other discussions.

Anti-Conspiratorial: They often assert a disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who believe legitimate and proven conspiracies, whilst at the same time they often defend outlandish and unverified conspiracies. This is designed to confuse the issue by diverting attention away from real intelligence, and toward counterintelligence, which is no threat to the adversary. If they are not defending or promoting any particular topic, then the chances are they are simply attempting to foster doubt about all material and discussions, although this is far less likely as it nurtures suspicion about their identity.

Artificial Emotion: An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later - an emotional yo-yo, which betrays their total lack of sincerity in the topic or discussion. For them, it is likely just a job, and so they do it without emotional attachment, although this may not always be the case.

Inconsistent: There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth or discovery deep within. They can make claims of authority on a certain topic, but once they've been shown to be wrong or fraudulent; casually change their position to suit the prevailing consensus. When observed, these traits are highly indicative of a disinformant, as the disinformant is only working toward short term goals of disruption, and is not concerned with integrity or a clean track record.

Some of the key techniques and tactics used by these people; to defame sources of information or opinion, to disrupt the exchange of information, and to contaminate the information itself, are as follows:

Imply Myth or Rumor: Avoid discussing details by describing all assertions, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. If the assertion can in any way be associated with known myth or rumor, use this to your advantage and appeal to popular cynicism by stating that it is 'obviously' such a myth or rumor.

Straw Man: Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent look bad. Either make up an issue that you can imply exists, based on your 'interpretation' of their assertions, and use that to discredit their case, or take the weakest and most insignificant aspect of their argument, amplify its significance into a pivotal issue, and debate them on that. This of course, distracts from core issues, and gives you a better chance of an 'easy win'.

Distract Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers.

Ad-Hominem: 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 deviants', 'drunks', 'drug addicts' and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. This can also assist in provoking an emotional response in your opponent, thus putting them on the defensive, where they are more likely to try and prove your personal attacks inaccurate.

Hit & Run: In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works well in making an accusation without having to dignify the response, and avoids getting caught in a direct confrontation over a single issue, which can be risky.

Question Motives: Much like the Ad-Hominem ploy; Twist, amplify or invent any fact which could be taken to suggest that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing real issues and forces the opponent on the defensive, so more time is spent countering these allegations than dealing with the core information.

Invoke Authority: Claim yourself to be, or associate yourself with an authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows'. By simply repeating these assertions with confidence and making frequent references to jargon, you can maintain the veneer of authority without having to deal in specifics for any length of time.

Play Dumb: No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect, and simply repeat over and over so that you appear to hold the stronger position.

Enigma: Drawing upon the multitude of facts and information surrounding the assertion, claim that they are too complex and too complicated to ever come to any reasonable conclusion on. This works best when your position is weakening and it is time to move on: offer the 'truce' of an unsolvable mystery; making you appear more objective, whilst your opponent appears more subjective for trying to push the issue.

Backward Logic: Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual fact. For example: Create a faulty premise which you know will appeal to a popular misconception, and use that 'logic' as the grounds to discredit your opponent's argument to the contrary.

Demand Complete Solutions: Demand a comprehensive and complete explanation of your opponent's premise, and use any unanswered questions or uncertainties as the basis for dismissing the entire argument altogether. This works well in swaying the opinion of others, because you are demonstrating that your opponent does not have all the answers. Thus, their argument is incomplete, and is therefore faulty 'by any reasonable standards'.

Change the Subject: Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here such as 'distract'; find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of swaying attention to a new, more manageable line of discussion, where you can take hold of the narrative.

Antagonize & Provoke: If you can't do anything else, insult and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism' or how 'you've damaged their ego'.

Project: Take all of the tactics you have used to discredit and attack your opponent, and turn it all around by accusing them of using the very same techniques. This creates confusion for the casual observer or commentator, allowing you to go on the offensive, where your opponent is suddenly put on the defensive again, and the argument is reduced to a series of heated yet basic assertions.

And much more at Camelot Forumhttp://camelotforum.net/index.php?op...762&Itemid=164

Views: 415

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

hey - this way you can have the same discussion as the real one, except maybe with the magic of censorship (already demonstrated tonight after i pointed out the whiplash-inducing hypocrisy of your deep thought 'realignment'), maybe you can 'win' your argument here, after losing so much ground over there!  

                                             (do you think anyone will 'notice'?)  

btw, it is customary to give proper credit when quoting someone else's (lebowski's) words (see top of article)   that way you can avoid being guilty of unimaginative plagiarism! (and STILL control both 'sides')

Shills !We don't need to be a rocket scientist to recognize them!!

Quote:
Below is series of statements taken from H. Michael Sweeney's 'Disinformation Playbook'. I have taken what I feel to be the most relevant assertions and observations, and embedded my own comments and observations to profile the common disinformant; as the full unabridged essay is very long and is not wholly relevant to this forum.

Just reiterating......i think this list is highly important for all to consider. Most Escpeccially considering the current negative atmosphere. A list like this will clearly point out who is who.

what need is there to 'relocate' it when it is already up?   or is the discussion not going your way there?  (it's not)  all you have done is re-posted it and added "a highly recommended article" to the title - it was ALREADY a highly recommended article because it was recommended by a highly respected member!

what have you added?   nothing   what have you taken away?   an open forum   look what happened earlier when you blocked me for pointing out your contradiction    lebowski has done the same thing to you on  dozens of occasions  - you're safer not being called out on your (i euphemize) 'contradictions' right here
 
David ofTomorrow said:

Just reiterating......i think this list is highly important for all to consider. Most Escpeccially considering the current negative atmosphere. A list like this will clearly point out who is who.

REITERATION

um...like spam?  if a product's good, once should be enough   we do not actually require to have it hammered home like a woodpecker on the forehead of our cuckoo clocks, to be broken down as by chinese water torture, or hypnotically en-tranced with mind-control repetition frequencies, either   

                                                remember what happened to moses!

now, do you have a legitimate reason for attempting to co-opt lebowski's discussion where you are faring so poorly?  (those quotes must be embarrassing, i realize - but this is a more dramatic over-reaction than chicken little's!)   or are you just trying to stop the bleeding, while obscuring the google references?

dotty's 'closed to comments' sycophantic and hypocritical deep thought 'reunited at last' love-fest ignores a serious logistical problem when attempting to account for that whole 'human' side of this man-machine 'interface':     it's the 'we're not machines' (or rats) part 

noam chomsky, whatever his political 'eccentricities', remains on top of the heap in decoding human thought processes from our 'transformative generative grammars'    below is part of his deconstruction of skinner's illogic 

also i note there is mention by deep thought of ufo abductions and cattle mutilations being conducted exclusively by human military forces - but with no mention of what unearthly technology makes these possible or even 'desirable' 

this apparent lack of familiarity with the works of wehrner von braun, carol rosin, john mack and others (particularly mack) may explain why his analysis (the technical aspects of which do not appear to be fully substantiated) is based on such an inappropriate psychological model, as outlined in the chomsky quotes

for any who are not aware of the drastic philosophical and practical limitations of so-called 'stimulus-response' or 'rat' psychology, for which the medicating 'behaviourists' came to be known, the chapter by noam chomsky on 'skinner' and operant conditioning is a brilliantly incisive deconstruction of this widely-heralded pseudo-science:  

(noam chomsky on skinner:)

"Skinner's thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior. He confidently and repeatedly voices his claim to have demonstrated that the contribution of the speaker is quite trivial and elementary, and that precise prediction of verbal behavior involves only specification of the few external factors that he has isolated experimentally with lower organisms.

"Careful study of this book (and of the research on which it draws) reveals, however, that these astonishing claims are far from justified. It indicates, furthermore, that the insights that have been achieved in the laboratories of the reinforcement theorist, though quite genuine, can be applied to complex human behavior only in the most gross and superficial way, and that speculative attempts to discuss linguistic behavior in these terms alone omit from consideration factors of fundamental importance that are, no doubt, amenable to scientific study, although their specific character cannot at present be precisely formulated. Since Skinner's work is the most extensive attempt to accommodate human behavior involving higher mental faculties within a strict behaviorist schema of the type that has attracted many linguists and philosophers, as well as psychologists, a detailed documentation is of independent interest. The magnitude of the failure of this attempt to account for verbal behavior serves as a kind of measure of the importance of the factors omitted from consideration, and an indication of how little is really known about this remarkably complex phenomenon."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

(laB rat:)

dotty, i don't think this is one of those discussions where you're allegations about my "impaired mechanics of linguistics" are going to be much help to you...

one who adopts this simplistic psychological misappropriation, which is considered by real social scientists to actually hold some measure of value when applied to animals (who operate primarily by instinct - as opposed to sentient creatures such as ourselves whose physical reality is already an entirely artificial construction mediated by linguistic structures and cultural codes), one will easily fall into 'automatic' modes of defeatism, such as you have displayed with comments such as "there is no use - the perps are too powerful"     but even this is just more social construction of reality - narrowing it, in this sad case

Like I said, deepthought is right about many things, but not all. From the way he talks, hes not had too much experience with human interactions through the technology. His experiences seems to be AI foremost. I personally have much experience with humans over this process, thus the info that you said in open cgst would not have been given in reality. Well. The advantage to dealing with humans, is they make mistakes. Quite often out of ego. As well as the fact that if I repeat what they tell me, or tell what they do to me....i look crazy to conventional thinkers.
can you tell us all your theory of how they communicate with us in our minds??


LaBrat said:

dotty's 'closed to comments' sycophantic and hypocritical deep thought 'reunited at last' love-fest ignores a serious logistical problem when attempting to account for that whole 'human' side of this man-machine 'interface':     it's the 'we're not machines' (or rats) part 

noam chomsky, whatever his political 'eccentricities', remains on top of the heap in decoding human thought processes from our 'transformative generative grammars'    below is part of his deconstruction of skinner's illogic 

also i note there is mention by deep thought of ufo abductions and cattle mutilations being conducted exclusively by human military forces - but with no mention of what unearthly technology makes these possible or even 'desirable' 

this apparent lack of familiarity with the works of wehrner von braun, carol rosin, john mack and others (particularly mack) may explain why his analysis (the technical aspects of which do not appear to be fully substantiated) is based on such an inappropriate psychological model, as outlined in the chomsky quotes

for any who are not aware of the drastic philosophical and practical limitations of so-called 'stimulus-response' or 'rat' psychology, for which the medicating 'behaviourists' came to be known, the chapter by noam chomsky on 'skinner' and operant conditioning is a brilliantly incisive deconstruction of this widely-heralded pseudo-science:  

(noam chomsky on skinner:)

"Skinner's thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior. He confidently and repeatedly voices his claim to have demonstrated that the contribution of the speaker is quite trivial and elementary, and that precise prediction of verbal behavior involves only specification of the few external factors that he has isolated experimentally with lower organisms.

"Careful study of this book (and of the research on which it draws) reveals, however, that these astonishing claims are far from justified. It indicates, furthermore, that the insights that have been achieved in the laboratories of the reinforcement theorist, though quite genuine, can be applied to complex human behavior only in the most gross and superficial way, and that speculative attempts to discuss linguistic behavior in these terms alone omit from consideration factors of fundamental importance that are, no doubt, amenable to scientific study, although their specific character cannot at present be precisely formulated. Since Skinner's work is the most extensive attempt to accommodate human behavior involving higher mental faculties within a strict behaviorist schema of the type that has attracted many linguists and philosophers, as well as psychologists, a detailed documentation is of independent interest. The magnitude of the failure of this attempt to account for verbal behavior serves as a kind of measure of the importance of the factors omitted from consideration, and an indication of how little is really known about this remarkably complex phenomenon."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

(laB rat:)

dotty, i don't think this is one of those discussions where you're allegations about my "impaired mechanics of linguistics" are going to be much help to you...

one who adopts this simplistic psychological misappropriation, which is considered by real social scientists to actually hold some measure of value when applied to animals (who operate primarily by instinct - as opposed to sentient creatures such as ourselves whose physical reality is already an entirely artificial construction mediated by linguistic structures and cultural codes), one will easily fall into 'automatic' modes of defeatism, such as you have displayed with comments such as "there is no use - the perps are too powerful"     but even this is just more social construction of reality - narrowing it, in this sad case

What the fuck does Chomsky have to do with being TI? Or v2k? Or 2 way communication by thought??


LaBrat said:

dotty's 'closed to comments' sycophantic and hypocritical deep thought 'reunited at last' love-fest ignores a serious logistical problem when attempting to account for that whole 'human' side of this man-machine 'interface':     it's the 'we're not machines' (or rats) part 

noam chomsky, whatever his political 'eccentricities', remains on top of the heap in decoding human thought processes from our 'transformative generative grammars'    below is part of his deconstruction of skinner's illogic 

also i note there is mention by deep thought of ufo abductions and cattle mutilations being conducted exclusively by human military forces - but with no mention of what unearthly technology makes these possible or even 'desirable' 

this apparent lack of familiarity with the works of wehrner von braun, carol rosin, john mack and others (particularly mack) may explain why his analysis (the technical aspects of which do not appear to be fully substantiated) is based on such an inappropriate psychological model, as outlined in the chomsky quotes

for any who are not aware of the drastic philosophical and practical limitations of so-called 'stimulus-response' or 'rat' psychology, for which the medicating 'behaviourists' came to be known, the chapter by noam chomsky on 'skinner' and operant conditioning is a brilliantly incisive deconstruction of this widely-heralded pseudo-science:  

(noam chomsky on skinner:)

"Skinner's thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior. He confidently and repeatedly voices his claim to have demonstrated that the contribution of the speaker is quite trivial and elementary, and that precise prediction of verbal behavior involves only specification of the few external factors that he has isolated experimentally with lower organisms.

"Careful study of this book (and of the research on which it draws) reveals, however, that these astonishing claims are far from justified. It indicates, furthermore, that the insights that have been achieved in the laboratories of the reinforcement theorist, though quite genuine, can be applied to complex human behavior only in the most gross and superficial way, and that speculative attempts to discuss linguistic behavior in these terms alone omit from consideration factors of fundamental importance that are, no doubt, amenable to scientific study, although their specific character cannot at present be precisely formulated. Since Skinner's work is the most extensive attempt to accommodate human behavior involving higher mental faculties within a strict behaviorist schema of the type that has attracted many linguists and philosophers, as well as psychologists, a detailed documentation is of independent interest. The magnitude of the failure of this attempt to account for verbal behavior serves as a kind of measure of the importance of the factors omitted from consideration, and an indication of how little is really known about this remarkably complex phenomenon."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

(laB rat:)

dotty, i don't think this is one of those discussions where you're allegations about my "impaired mechanics of linguistics" are going to be much help to you...

one who adopts this simplistic psychological misappropriation, which is considered by real social scientists to actually hold some measure of value when applied to animals (who operate primarily by instinct - as opposed to sentient creatures such as ourselves whose physical reality is already an entirely artificial construction mediated by linguistic structures and cultural codes), one will easily fall into 'automatic' modes of defeatism, such as you have displayed with comments such as "there is no use - the perps are too powerful"     but even this is just more social construction of reality - narrowing it, in this sad case

if you tried reading it, instead of re-posting it twice, the answer to these questions may become apparent   the first question is answered in chomsky's exposure of the severely impaired theoretical model upon which 'syn-tel' is based

the second question is a tautology - it assumes the existence of two-way telepathy, which has not been established scientifically even at the theoretical level    it's really just another version of the 'do you still beat your wife' loaded question    (this is where 'dr' duncan's thesis might have come in handy lol!)

it ignores the active, creative aspects of intersubjectivity (hermeneutics), the social construction of reality out of linguistic structures defining the limits of social dramas re-enacted generationally (r. d. laing's 'anti-psychiatry' tie-in as outlined by soleilmavis)  

triggered hypnotic implanted suggestions could easily be 'directed' to create the illusion of monitoring
 

David ofTomorrow said:

What the fuck does Chomsky have to do with being TI? Or v2k? Or 2-way communication by thought?

(laBrat)

for any who are not aware of the drastic philosophical and practical limitations of so-called 'stimulus-response' or 'rat' psychology, for which the medicating 'behaviourists' came to be known, the chapter by noam chomsky on 'skinner' and operant conditioning is a brilliantly incisive deconstruction of this widely-heralded pseudo-science:  

(noam chomsky on skinner:)

"Skinner's thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior. He confidently and repeatedly voices his claim to have demonstrated that the contribution of the speaker is quite trivial and elementary, and that precise prediction of verbal behavior involves only specification of the few external factors that he has isolated experimentally with lower organisms.

"Careful study of this book (and of the research on which it draws) reveals, however, that these astonishing claims are far from justified. It indicates, furthermore, that the insights that have been achieved in the laboratories of the reinforcement theorist, though quite genuine, can be applied to complex human behavior only in the most gross and superficial way, and that speculative attempts to discuss linguistic behavior in these terms alone omit from consideration factors of fundamental importance that are, no doubt, amenable to scientific study, although their specific character cannot at present be precisely formulated. Since Skinner's work is the most extensive attempt to accommodate human behavior involving higher mental faculties within a strict behaviorist schema of the type that has attracted many linguists and philosophers, as well as psychologists, a detailed documentation is of independent interest. The magnitude of the failure of this attempt to account for verbal behavior serves as a kind of measure of the importance of the factors omitted from consideration, and an indication of how little is really known about this remarkably complex phenomenon."

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

(laB rat:)

dotty, i don't think this is one of those discussions where you're allegations about my "brain-damaged/lobotomized impaired mechanics of linguistics" are going to be much help to you...

one who adopts this simplistic psychological misappropriation, which is considered by real social scientists to actually hold some measure of value when applied to animals (who operate primarily by instinct - as opposed to sentient creatures such as ourselves whose physical reality is already an entirely artificial construction mediated by linguistic structures and cultural codes), will easily fall into 'automatic' modes of defeatism, such as you have displayed with comments such as "there is no use - the perps are too powerful"     but even this is just more social construction of reality - narrowing it, in this sad case

i recognize that even the legitimate elements of your confusion are profound beyond imagination, and hope that this technical explication of the liability of the psychological model syn-tel is based on is helpful

So, let me get this clear. You are saying chomsky discuses v2k. And you are saying that sll TIs who experience two way communication are.....what?!
We're all waiting! How do YOU describe or explain what we call two way communication by thought??
Please be clear.


LaBrat said:

if you tried reading it, instead of re-posting it twice, the answer to these questions may become apparent   the first question is answered in chomsky's exposure of the severely impaired theoretical model 'syn-tel' is based on

the second question is a tautology - it assumes the existence of two-way telepathy, which has not been established scientifically even at the theoretical level (this is where 'dr' duncan's thesis might have come in handy)

it ignores the active, creative aspects of intersubjectivity (hermeneutics), the social construction of reality out of linguistic structures defining the limits of social dramas re-enacted generationally (r.d.laing's tie-in as outlined by soleilmavis)   triggered hypnotic implanted suggestions could easily be 'directed' to create the illusion of monitoring
 

David ofTomorrow said:

What the fuck does Chomsky have to do with being TI? Or v2k? Or 2-way communication by thought?
.

(laBrat)

for any who are not aware of the drastic philosophical and practical limitations of so-called 'stimulus-response' or 'rat' psychology, for which the medicating 'behaviourists' came to be known, the chapter by noam chomsky on 'skinner' and operant conditioning is a brilliantly incisive deconstruction of this widely-heralded pseudo-science:  

.

(noam chomsky on skinner:)

.

"Skinner's thesis is that external factors consisting of present stimulation and the history of reinforcement (in particular, the frequency, arrangement, and withholding of reinforcing stimuli) are of overwhelming importance, and that the general principles revealed in laboratory studies of these phenomena provide the basis for understanding the complexities of verbal behavior. He confidently and repeatedly voices his claim to have demonstrated that the contribution of the speaker is quite trivial and elementary, and that precise prediction of verbal behavior involves only specification of the few external factors that he has isolated experimentally with lower organisms.

.

"Careful study of this book (and of the research on which it draws) reveals, however, that these astonishing claims are far from justified. It indicates, furthermore, that the insights that have been achieved in the laboratories of the reinforcement theorist, though quite genuine, can be applied to complex human behavior only in the most gross and superficial way, and that speculative attempts to discuss linguistic behavior in these terms alone omit from consideration factors of fundamental importance that are, no doubt, amenable to scientific study, although their specific character cannot at present be precisely formulated. Since Skinner's work is the most extensive attempt to accommodate human behavior involving higher mental faculties within a strict behaviorist schema of the type that has attracted many linguists and philosophers, as well as psychologists, a detailed documentation is of independent interest. The magnitude of the failure of this attempt to account for verbal behavior serves as a kind of measure of the importance of the factors omitted from consideration, and an indication of how little is really known about this remarkably complex phenomenon."

.

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967----.htm

.

(laB rat:)

.

dotty, i don't think this is one of those discussions where you're allegations about my "impaired mechanics of linguistics" are going to be much help to you...

.

one who adopts this simplistic psychological misappropriation, which is considered by real social scientists to actually hold some measure of value when applied to animals (who operate primarily by instinct - as opposed to sentient creatures such as ourselves whose physical reality is already an entirely artificial construction mediated by linguistic structures and cultural codes), one will easily fall into 'automatic' modes of defeatism, such as you have displayed with comments such as "there is no use - the perps are too powerful"     but even this is just more social construction of reality - narrowing it, in this sad case

This fact is Obvious: LaBrat has Zero experience with v2k.

This is the troll tool you just used in citing chomsky;
Distract Introduce a new topic altogether, and encourage commentators or observers to focus on this information instead. This can be accurate, partially inaccurate, or wholly inaccurate information, but which is non-threatening to your cause and which is likely to gain more attention through sensation, controversy or curiosity. Mixing a little bit of fact with a lot of fiction is often the most effective method, as this lures people in yet leaves them without any solid intelligence to use. This means spending more time on a non-issue, which is good for avoiding real issues, and may even illicit some long term believers.

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Latest Activity

Gretta Fahey posted a blog post

HOW THE BRAIN HAS BECOME A BATTLE SPACE AND WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU.

 Brain science is being developed for military and warfare applications. Professor James Giordano of Georgetown University Medical Center, U.S.A., who works in this particular area had this to say in the below linked youtube video “The human brain can be assessed in real time by utilizing convergent forms of neuro imaging when coupled to a host of neuro electric physiological techniques. This has created an opportunity to be able to affect the way humans think, feel and behave on a variety of…See More
57 minutes ago
Sue replied to CLS's discussion MIND CONTROL TORTURE
"Yes Ramiz they do tear you down all the time. They cant stand us being happy. When l find something that makes me happy they find a way to ruin it. They hate us operating at high frequency. They feed off our negative energy. VM gave you great advice…"
2 hours ago
Sue replied to CLS's discussion MIND CONTROL TORTURE
"Yoire right VM they do alter outcomes. I think they do that with people with v2k who take meds and then stop the voices so the person thinks theyre mentally ill. Good idea for me to try new things. I have been trying meditation and exercise but lm…"
2 hours ago
Alels replied to CLS's discussion MIND CONTROL TORTURE
"Ramiz, to stick to you in the past, dreams and everywhere, but not in present its one of they method. You should be somewhere else, but not here and now, that's just what they want, because later you crazy, later dangerous and later they will…"
3 hours ago
ramiz berisha replied to CLS's discussion MIND CONTROL TORTURE
"VM... Thank you very much for for that... That was really good..I appreciate you and the whole TI community I love you guys... I remembered not to long I was going through hell and SUE really helped me a loot and I never forget that ...as I said…"
7 hours ago
Soleilmavis posted an event

London Wednesday Rally at Parliament House

May 24, 2019 at 3pm to December 31, 2019 at 7pm
Mr. Paolo Fiora and some others organize a regular Wednesday Rally in London near Parliament House.One of it will be on Wednesday June 5th.Raise awareness of the situation of secret mind control abuse and torture.More details see https://www.facebook.com/events/2140797726028837/Contact Mr. Paolo Fiora:07709926942 paolo_bf@hotmail.comSee More
7 hours ago
VM replied to CLS's discussion MIND CONTROL TORTURE
"Ramiz, I'm sorry to hear what you are going through. Yes, they seem to want to hold us back in different ways. Does thinking of your past upset you? Another thing they may be trying to do is just mess with your head. Like they may try to make…"
8 hours ago
ramiz berisha replied to CLS's discussion MIND CONTROL TORTURE
"You are so right VM...They are the one who can send different feelings every moment of the day....I was always positive high energy  High Frequency, and never swear for 40 years ....The more I try to raise my frequency the more these…"
9 hours ago

Badge

Loading…

© 2019   Created by Soleilmavis.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service