We're rubbing the shills noses in their bullshit, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do to stop it. Now, back to the topic at hand:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. 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. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) 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 deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
This pretty much sums up any GMO conversation I've had on Reddit. The pro GMO commentators come out of nowhere. The only time they contribute to the community is when the topic of GMOs appear. Maybe time to make an anti GMO post and see who shows up.
When called out on these tactics, shill will usually start citing them back to you and dodge everything thrown at them that way. If you notice this, disengage and stop losing time, unless you're bored.
I look forward to your explanation on how my response here is indicative of a shill.
You're setting a false premise straight off the bat and accusing me of calling you something without any prior interaction. I can't help but feel you have bad intentions with this.
So any and all attempts to refute, is proof the person is a shill?
No, use personal discernement. The methods listed can be used for nefarious reasons. They can also be used subconsciously or coincidentally. It's more of a guideline to see if your interlocutor is interested in having a real discussion, or wishes to disrupt discussions.
So any and all attempts to refute, is proof the person is a shill?
Because if common folk are using these tactics listed, then they're not exclusive to and indicative of shillery.
I look forward to your explanation on how my response here is indicative of a shill.
No.
Behavioral analysis relies on patterns not anomalies.
Straw man. You can't just make a comment and say, "prove I'm not a shill based off of what I just said." No hundereds of date points have to come together to determine if an individual is acting in a particular way indicative of a troll provocateur.
Reported again for baiting, and for now overwhelming evidence of both vote botting and defending shills. Every single comment on the first page of your history is defending shills and brigading, and every single time you are confronted you get a uniform number of upvotes.
When called out on these tactics, shill will usually start citing them back to you and dodge everything thrown at them that way.
There's only a couple of them that do that, and they all seem to work swing shift. Might even be the same one. It's really telling because the guy plays dumb about shilling, and then suddenly comes in with razor sharp logic on the finer points of what is and is not certain shilling methods. Like he's studied it... because he has.
Could be a supervisor. I've noticed a sudden shift in tone/quality sometimes when they're getting their asses kicked in an important thread (all shilling threads are important to them), like they tag out the new guy and send in the boss to fight it out.
With all these daily reminders, they're blocking out all new content.
This is going to be from a different angle daily. Yesterday I gave a sneak peak for chapter one and today I'll be writing another small summary of I get time.
Have you read my top comment in this thread before?
Top level I.e. not commented on but a comment to the post.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. 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. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) 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 deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Can you show me where this is found to be true? The term conspiracy theory has been around long before the CIA. This is one of those things that gets parroted around here but I've yet to see concrete info about the truth of this claim. Not saying I disagree that it's a derogatory term at this point.
obvious brigade is obvious. you're abso right to repoast the crap out of this. logged in just to add a measure of counterbalance. fuck those guys. i try to imagine what it's like to be thus morally bankrupt and devoid of character & how it must suck to be like that, then i remember that psychopaths are real & they're aptitudinally incapable of such basic human traits. this follows that the world is ran by such aberrant scum. better them than us, for they shall not profit in any meaningful way. fuck 'em right in the pussy.
better them than us, for they shall not profit in any meaningful way. fuck 'em right in the pussy.
Keep rubbing their noses in it. It demoralizes them, which is exactly what they are trying to do to us. The shills here are shit-tier and utterly ineffective at their job.
53 comments
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
What IS going on here?
We're rubbing the shills noses in their bullshit, and there isn't a goddamn thing you can do to stop it. Now, back to the topic at hand:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. 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. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) 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 deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Thanks to;
/u/ciasellsdrugs
1 AreEternal 2018-03-22
This pretty much sums up any GMO conversation I've had on Reddit. The pro GMO commentators come out of nowhere. The only time they contribute to the community is when the topic of GMOs appear. Maybe time to make an anti GMO post and see who shows up.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
That would be a good case study. I say do it!
1 AreEternal 2018-03-22
How many downvote bots are attached to you? Or are ppl just voting out of spite?
1 difficult_vaginas 2018-03-22
Spite.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
I relish in their clicks!
1 Blackbaby11 2018-03-22
Nice post RMFN. Im hoping this information is spread far and wide.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
The tide is turning.
1 Rayfloyd 2018-03-22
When called out on these tactics, shill will usually start citing them back to you and dodge everything thrown at them that way. If you notice this, disengage and stop losing time, unless you're bored.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
So any and all attempts to refute, is proof the person is a shill.
Because if common folk are using these tactics listed, then they're not exclusive to and indicative of shillery.
1 Rayfloyd 2018-03-22
You're setting a false premise straight off the bat and accusing me of calling you something without any prior interaction. I can't help but feel you have bad intentions with this.
No, use personal discernement. The methods listed can be used for nefarious reasons. They can also be used subconsciously or coincidentally. It's more of a guideline to see if your interlocutor is interested in having a real discussion, or wishes to disrupt discussions.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
No.
Behavioral analysis relies on patterns not anomalies.
Straw man. You can't just make a comment and say, "prove I'm not a shill based off of what I just said." No hundereds of date points have to come together to determine if an individual is acting in a particular way indicative of a troll provocateur.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
Hundreds of data points? So realistically nobody can use it.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Incorrect.
1 Rayfloyd 2018-03-22
It rarely crosses people mind, that, how they think and how they reason with stuff, might be different for someone else.
Some people have trouble holding 5 facts in their mind while others interpolate multiple strates of information to find actual truth in the mess.
The world is all about patterns and exceptions.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
So you're telling me that every time you've brought up this link in response to someone, you've already analyzed hundreds of data points on them?
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Is that what I said??
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
Yes
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Oh.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-03-22
Are you admitting that you're a shill or just trying to bait? Both are grounds for a ban. Reported.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
Did you just accuse me of a rule violation?
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-03-22
Reported again for baiting, and for now overwhelming evidence of both vote botting and defending shills. Every single comment on the first page of your history is defending shills and brigading, and every single time you are confronted you get a uniform number of upvotes.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
That's not baiting, that's asking for confirmation.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-03-22
There's only a couple of them that do that, and they all seem to work swing shift. Might even be the same one. It's really telling because the guy plays dumb about shilling, and then suddenly comes in with razor sharp logic on the finer points of what is and is not certain shilling methods. Like he's studied it... because he has.
Could be a supervisor. I've noticed a sudden shift in tone/quality sometimes when they're getting their asses kicked in an important thread (all shilling threads are important to them), like they tag out the new guy and send in the boss to fight it out.
1 politicalconspiracie 2018-03-22
This should be made a sticky.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
It really should.
1 joelberg 2018-03-22
How many more times are you gonna post this same content?
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
/u/joelberg
Not quick enough, mate.
1 talleyhooo 2018-03-22
Didn't you post this yesterday
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Yes. It is part of a new series of daily reminders for our irregular users.
1 talleyhooo 2018-03-22
Maybe sticky and save the trouble? It doesn't seem to be doing well poor visibility
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
We should petition the mods for a sticky.
1 talleyhooo 2018-03-22
I kinda assumed you were conclave material man. Take it to them there!
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Apparently some on the MOD team don't like me. I'm apparently "too prickly"..
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
With all these daily reminders, they're blocking out all new content.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
This is going to be from a different angle daily. Yesterday I gave a sneak peak for chapter one and today I'll be writing another small summary of I get time.
Have you read my top comment in this thread before?
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
You don't have a top comment.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Top level I.e. not commented on but a comment to the post.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for ‘conspiracy theorists’ and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. 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. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) 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 deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I’m not aware of too many Navy pilots who don’t have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to ‘get permission’ or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay – the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Thanks to;
/u/theciasellsdrugs
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
None of your comments are top level. Top comments require upvotes, after all.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Top comment =/= top level comment.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
You don't have a top anything here :/
1 fuckedyourfaceoff 2018-03-22
You are really fucking dense lmao.
1 Rockran 2018-03-22
Thanks.
1 fuckedyourfaceoff 2018-03-22
Yeah, too many bots are attacking him for that.
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-03-22
Beatings will continue until shill morale worsens.
1 Amazonistrash 2018-03-22
"Conapiracy theorist" is a derogatory term invented by the CIA to discredit people who actually want to uncover conspiracies.
1 AreEternal 2018-03-22
Can you show me where this is found to be true? The term conspiracy theory has been around long before the CIA. This is one of those things that gets parroted around here but I've yet to see concrete info about the truth of this claim. Not saying I disagree that it's a derogatory term at this point.
Here's where I'm coming from
1 Bruce_de_Balzac 2018-03-22
obvious brigade is obvious. you're abso right to repoast the crap out of this. logged in just to add a measure of counterbalance. fuck those guys. i try to imagine what it's like to be thus morally bankrupt and devoid of character & how it must suck to be like that, then i remember that psychopaths are real & they're aptitudinally incapable of such basic human traits. this follows that the world is ran by such aberrant scum. better them than us, for they shall not profit in any meaningful way. fuck 'em right in the pussy.
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
With that comment alone I can safely say that I would be 100% behind you as a MOD here.
1 Bruce_de_Balzac 2018-03-22
Not me, brah, but Thanks!
1 RMFN 2018-03-22
Just saying that is the attitude we need.
1 Bruce_de_Balzac 2018-03-22
for sure. I get you. the pay would have to be really good. ha.
cheers!
1 TheCIASellsDrugs 2018-03-22
Keep rubbing their noses in it. It demoralizes them, which is exactly what they are trying to do to us. The shills here are shit-tier and utterly ineffective at their job.
1 BabyJezus777 2018-03-22
it's happening now! ALL THE DISTRACTIONS!
1 fuckedyourfaceoff 2018-03-22
You are really fucking dense lmao.