by professorpan » Tue Oct 03, 2006 11:27 am
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>If you keep distorting what I write, Prof Pan, I'm going to conclude it is intentional.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Oh, for lawd's sake. What's next -- the dreaded "disinfo agent" slur? Hugh, my good man, all I've ever done is try to point out the gaping, monster-truck-sized flaws in your grand theory. Honestly, if you weren't such an acute analyst of media, I wouldn't even bother. But your sharp mind is being ground down to a dull knob by the brobdingnangian metaconspiracy you've built in your head. <br><br>The Project Paperclip thread has already been beaten into a pulp, so despite your clinging to it like a drowning man to a life preserver, I would tell others to check it out for themselves. For the umpteenth time, the biggest "kick me" sign on the back of your "keyword hijacking" idea is that it *<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>doesn't work</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->* and *<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>is compeletely illogical.</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->*<br><br>For instance, as I have pointed out in ad nauseum, someone looking into Project Paperclip (the documentary) is <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>more likely</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> to stumble upon Operation Paperclip! This is the achilles heel of your theory which has been brought to your attention countless times -- yet you have never acknowledged it. You beat a retreat when the fallacies are held out in front of your face, emerging again when the next example of your confirmation bias ignites your fancy.<br><br>That doesn't even begin to address the vast expenditure of resources, both human and financial, required to implement something of <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>dubious and unproven efficacy</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> as creating entire films to "hijack" a phrase.<br><br>A theory as grand and complex as yours requires at least a minimum of evidence for any reasonable person to consider it -- hence the continuous requests for a shred, a speck, a fleck, a dust mote of factual corroboration.<br><br>You cannot supply the evidence because it does not exist.<br><br>It's sad to see a good mind wasted, to paraphrase Dan Quayle. Your insightful media analysis and your excellent research are wasted in your quixotic quest to push "keyword hijacking." I do find valuable nuggets in your posts -- your discussion of the origin of red/blue characterizations of states was very provocative. <br><br>I wish you'd post more of that and put the keyword hijacking to rest. <p></p><i></i>