Subtle trolling example?

[barracuda]

I love it when these tenuous lines of communication blossom into fragrant flowers of wordless understanding.

I think you guys just "completed" one another.

[n0x23]

You had me at Hello.

[brainpanhandler]

It was when username brainpanhandler posted what could be interpreted as a very subtle suggestion that professorpan and Zap were a team of some kind - or not-
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewt ... &start=105

PP has made himself scarce

-that suddenly Zap started posting relentlessly that HMW was sockpuppeting the board. What a coincidence!

Ahem, just for the record, brainpanhandler meant nothing more than that PP is responsible for PP.

Only brainpanhandler can provide you with this information.

[barracuda]

I'm just guesstimating here, but I'd say you've posted 99% of ALL brainpanhandler-related information on this forum.

Accept no substititutes.

[compared2what?]

You know, as many times as I've seen you quote and/or paraphrase some or all of that, Hugh, I can't for the life of me recall ever seeing any posters -- or, I guess, "usernames," if it helps to depersonalize them -- according to whom there was no such thing who actually responded to you by maintaining that there was no such thing. Nor have I ever noticed any suspicious proliferation of "There are no government PSYOPS, you fools" (or some such) thread topics.

Well, then let me be the first to state that I think the whole Conspiracy Theory of the CIA infiltrating the media to wage Psychological Warfare on the mind's of the unsuspecting masses is absolutely, without a doubt, asinine and paranoid!

As if the US Army, the CIA's Office of Policy Co-Ordination, the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office and the producers of Woody Woodpecker, are actually going to fund and develop Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 into animated films and comic books for children.

Give me a break!

How tight does your tin-foil hat have to be to be...lieve...oh, wait, er...ah...um...nevermind.


I'm going to go back to sleep, 'cause Bill Hicks told me EVERYTHING is under control!

No flag on play, since I didn't define my terms. But by "media" I meant all media, including news media, public-education-type television, print and/or viral media, ad-industry generated media, and VNRs, not just some or any examples of entertainment media. Not that some of those aren't pretty fucking propagandistic, too, for that matter.

But my point was more that Hugh was suggesting that there were posters who denied, on principle, the existence of well-attested-to intelligence programs of the kind for which he was citing some of the evidence that attests to their existence, when there really, really aren't as far as I'm aware.

He often does that as if it were responsive to questions that are entirely unrelated to it. And it's not. Beyond pointing out that logical fallacy, I wasn't really expressing any opinions wrt his posts one way or the other, for the purposes of this thread. I have expressed such opinions elsewhere on a few occasions. IIRC, the very first time I did so was in Hugh's defense. And most times, I wasn't being hostile or adversarial even when I did disagree. And I do really try not to be now, though I do sometimes tend to backslide on that point, which I regret, regret, regret.

Anyway. Whatever my personal failings are, the only serious objections to Hugh's posts that I have aren't angry objections. They're serious practical concerns about the the potentially damn real dangerous consequences to which trusting people who get 99 percent of their information on the CIA and the media from Hugh might be exposing themselves, were they either to emulate or unthinkingly accept everything he says and does without questioning it and without considering alternative sources of info. Because that's a serious possibility, and not a good one.

[Col. Quisp]

the propaganda machine is becoming more brazen:

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/06/the-neas-partisan-work-for-obama/?feat=home_editorials

The Washington Times
Sunday, September 6, 2009
EDITORIAL: The NEA's partisan work for Obama

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

When the Obama administration launched its United We Serve volunteerism program earlier this summer, it was all about building playgrounds, caring for wounded veterans and reading to homeless children. Weeks later, the Obama White House, the National Endowment for the Arts and United We Serve have revealed the actual agenda -- backing the administration's political priorities with coordinated propaganda, perhaps boosted by millions in stimulus cash.

In a conference call with dozens of politically connected artists held Aug. 10, Yosi Sergant, director of communications for the NEA, made the plan explicit:

c "This is just the beginning. This is the first telephone call of a brand-new conversation. We are just now learning how to really bring this community together to speak with the government."

c "So bear with us as we learn the language, so that we can speak to each other safely and we can really work together to move the needle and to get ... stuff done."

c "I would encourage you to pick something, whether it's health care, education, the environment.... Then my task would be to apply your artistic, creativity community's utilities. Bring them to the table."

c "Take photos. Take video. Post it on your blogs. Get the word out. Like I said, this is a community that knows how to make a stink. Do it. Do it within your town. Do it nationally. Call on other producers, marketers, publicists, art -- you know -- artists, people from within our community and get them engaged."

The Obama administration had to know that its effort to use a supposedly independent arts agency and a national volunteer program to coordinate political propaganda in support of the administration's agenda was shady, to say the least. The most important unanswered questions are: Which artists and organizations were invited to be part of the effort? How many of them were recipients of grants from $80 million the NEA has distributed this year as part of the stimulus program?

Clearly, there is something here because the first reaction of the administration to questions about the effort was to fudge. After the basic facts of the conference call broke on BigHollywood, Andrew Breitbart's Web site, The Washington Times called Mr. Sergant to ask for details of the effort, including a copy of the invitation sent to artists.

In an act of shortsighted amateurism, Mr. Sergant -- an Obama political appointee -- told a Washington Times online producer the exact opposite of the truth: that the invitation "didn't come from us, so I don't have it to distribute. The corporation who set up the conference call and who conducted the conference call is another federal agency."

The next day, BigHollywood published the invitation. Not only did the NEA send the invitation, but Mr. Sergant is the one who sent it. The invitation itself says the NEA was working in "collaboration" with United We Serve and the White House Office of Public Engagement. And Mr. Sergant was a dominant participant in the conference call.

When government officials deceive the public, it's usually to cover up something wrong.

[Penguin]

He often does that as if it were responsive to questions that are entirely unrelated to it. And it's not. Beyond pointing out that logical fallacy, I wasn't really expressing any opinions wrt his posts one way or the other, for the purposes of this thread. I have expressed such opinions elsewhere on a few occasions. IIRC, the very first time I did so was in Hugh's defense. And most times, I wasn't being hostile or adversarial even when I did disagree. And I do really try not to be now, though I do sometimes tend to backslide on that point, which I regret, regret, regret.

Anyway. Whatever my personal failings are, the only serious objections to Hugh's posts that I have aren't angry objections. They're serious practical concerns about the the potentially damn real dangerous consequences to which trusting people who get 99 percent of their information on the CIA and the media from Hugh might be exposing themselves, were they either to emulate or unthinkingly accept everything he says and does without questioning it and without considering alternative sources of info. Because that's a serious possibility, and not a good one.

Thanks, c2w, again, for saying it all better than I ever could.
And please, no one take it personally, I was just trying to investigate this feeling I had regarding some stuff, without unnecessarily pointing fingers, or elbows, any more than was unavoidable - I just wanted others input on this.

Also, my original preamble was not to necessarily say anything about Hugh, I mostly thought that the other (plain vanilla) trollers seem to use the existing disagreements for extra trolling fuel. But, I digress. I hope no hard feelings?

[n0x23]

You know, as many times as I've seen you quote and/or paraphrase some or all of that, Hugh, I can't for the life of me recall ever seeing any posters -- or, I guess, "usernames," if it helps to depersonalize them -- according to whom there was no such thing who actually responded to you by maintaining that there was no such thing. Nor have I ever noticed any suspicious proliferation of "There are no government PSYOPS, you fools" (or some such) thread topics.

Well, then let me be the first to state that I think the whole Conspiracy Theory of the CIA infiltrating the media to wage Psychological Warfare on the mind's of the unsuspecting masses is absolutely, without a doubt, asinine and paranoid!

As if the US Army, the CIA's Office of Policy Co-Ordination, the Information Research Department of the British Foreign Office and the producers of Woody Woodpecker, are actually going to fund and develop Orwell's Animal Farm and 1984 into animated films and comic books for children.

Give me a break!

How tight does your tin-foil hat have to be to be...lieve...oh, wait, er...ah...um...nevermind.


I'm going to go back to sleep, 'cause Bill Hicks told me EVERYTHING is under control!

No flag on play, since I didn't define my terms. But by "media" I meant all media, including news media, public-education-type television, print and/or viral media, ad-industry generated media, and VNRs, not just some or any examples of entertainment media. Not that some of those aren't pretty fucking propagandistic, too, for that matter.

But my point was more that Hugh was suggesting that there were posters who denied, on principle, the existence of well-attested-to intelligence programs of the kind for which he was citing some of the evidence that attests to their existence, when there really, really aren't as far as I'm aware.

He often does that as if it were responsive to questions that are entirely unrelated to it. And it's not. Beyond pointing out that logical fallacy, I wasn't really expressing any opinions wrt his posts one way or the other, for the purposes of this thread. I have expressed such opinions elsewhere on a few occasions. IIRC, the very first time I did so was in Hugh's defense. And most times, I wasn't being hostile or adversarial even when I did disagree. And I do really try not to be now, though I do sometimes tend to backslide on that point, which I regret, regret, regret.

Anyway. Whatever my personal failings are, the only serious objections to Hugh's posts that I have aren't angry objections. They're serious practical concerns about the the potentially damn real dangerous consequences to which trusting people who get 99 percent of their information on the CIA and the media from Hugh might be exposing themselves, were they either to emulate or unthinkingly accept everything he says and does without questioning it and without considering alternative sources of info. Because that's a serious possibility, and not a good one.

[compared2what?]

Poor manatees. (As well as poor humanities.) They're being gruesomely mutilated or killed by the happy and carefree recreational boaters who regularly speed through what are supposed to be conservation-protected waters in Florida, where they've been part of the native fauna for 45 million years, but almost certainly aren't going still to be in the very near future.

They're as intelligent, communicative, playful and generally likable and worthy of respect as dolphins are. Except that most people know that about dolphins.



Fuck it. I'm going to stop fighting various losing battles on infinitely increasing global fronts and start saving up so that I can run away and join the manatees. As God is my witness. For at least part or all of the next three days. After that, I'll probably go back to bitching as usual. But still. You never know.

They started out as land animals with legs, before whenever it was that they took the Aquatic Mammal Exit on the Eocene Evolutionary Parkway. Did you know that? They're distantly related to elephants. And also hyraxes.



I'm sure you can see the striking resemblance.

[barracuda]

^^ Agreed. And the same goes for all of the various fusiform sea cows still wandering earth's waters.

[compared2what?]

^^ Agreed. And the same goes for all of the various fusiform sea cows still wandering earth's waters.

À la recherche dugongs perdu.

.
.
.
.

.

Though what is the point, really? No one will ever top Jeff's "Hey Man, Nice Shot". It's not fair that some people get to be geniuses, if you ask me.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Disney's 'Little Mermaid' series included in the 2008 episode a fat...gay...manatee...as henchman of the obligatory Evil Aspiring Woman.

Oh. And he has a key...around his neck...ouch the threat.

http://blogout.justout.com/?p=1439

Little Mermaid Prequel Has a Gay Manatee?
August 27th, 2008 at 2:56 pm by Chris Kramer

It’s not stone proof probably just jumping to conclusions, but the villain, Marina Del Ray voiced by Sally Field in the new straight to DVD Disney movie The Little Mermaid: Aeriel’s Beginning, seems to have a fabulously gay manatee for a stylist/assistant. As Lynn and Alex of laragmag.com said in their blog about it:

The best part was the villain, Marina Del Ray, has a fat gay manatee as her sidekick named Benjamin, with a lisp and everything! We were dying to be honest, clapping and praising Disney from our couch for how far they’ve come.

Psyops science-
"Method of Loci"
...and it's decoy movie, 'The Mask,' about Loki, the Norse god of mischief.
See Posner and Snyder on masked priming.

[compared2what?]

Really? Assholes. I'm never giving any part of the Disney empire another fucking dime. Ain't nobody fucks with my crew, nuh-uh.

Seriously, Hugh. That just totally pisses me off, and I genuinely can't help it. People are simply not as rational as they like to think they are, I notice. And not for the first time, either.

Disney's 'Little Mermaid' series included in the 2008 episode a fat...gay...manatee...as henchman of the obligatory Evil Aspiring Woman

Grrrr.

I mean, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. But did they have to make you fat and lisping, too? That's just uncalled for, imo. Fuck them.

[brainpanhandler]

Ain't nobody fucks with my crew

Let that be your last battlefield - episode 70 - first aired 10 January 1969

Lokai - "You’re being very loose with your accusations and drawing conclusions without any facts"

[brainpanhandler]

But my point was more that Hugh was suggesting that there were posters who denied, on principle, the existence of well-attested-to intelligence programs of the kind for which he was citing some of the evidence that attests to their existence, when there really, really aren't as far as I'm aware.

It would be nice to have a link though.

According to some usernames' scorning of "huge conspiracies," there's no such thing as a national psyops program coordinated with regional centers, a system begun in WWII as the Office of War Information and as described recently in Army Field Manual 33-1 (Psychological Operations) or 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict).

source-
Army Field Manual 100/20
Air Force Pamphlet 3-20
12/5/90 version

Appendix E pages E-14 and E-15

Psychological Operations

......
Objectives

Psychological operations support the achievement of national objectives and target specific groups. The PSYOP objectives for the main target groups are as follows:

* Insurgents - to create dissension, disorganization, low morale, subversion, and defection within insurgent forces. Also important are national programs to win insurgents over to the government's side.
* Civilian population - to gain, preserve, and strengthen civilian support for the government and its counterinsurgency programs.
* Military forces - to gain, preserve, or strengthen military support with emphasis on builiding and maintaining the morale of these forces. The loyalty, discipline, and motivation of the forces are critical factors in combating insurgency.
* Neutral elements - to gain the support of uncommitted groups inside and outside of the threatened nation by revealing the insurgency's subversive activities. Also important is bringing international pressure to bear on any hostile power sponsoring the insurgency.
* External hostile powers - to convince the hostile power supporting the insurgents that the insurgency will fail.

National Program

The national PSYOP program contains national objectives, plans, guidance, and desired approaches. Planners prepare and coordinate an informational program at the national level. A single agency should be responsible for coordinating these efforts to avoid conflicting themes and programs.

Agencies at all levels base their PSYOP on the national plan, interpreting them in terms of local requirements, and coordinating them through appropriate ACCs [Area Coordination Centers]. To achieve maximum effectiveness, all informational activities depend on clearly established channels.

Civilian and Military Organizations

PSYOP organizations conduct and support informational activities at the national level and at the subnational and local levels.

A single agency at the national level -

> Plans a coordinated national PSYOP program.
> Organizes, trains, and allocates PSYOP units and resources.
> Conducts strategic PSYOP.
> Develops program effectiveness criteria.
> Monitors the PSYOP program.
> Produces, analyzes, and disseminates PSYOP intelligence.
> Provides an analysis of specific target groups.

At the subnational level, the ACC translates national PSYOP programs and directives into implementing guidance for local ACCs and all government agencies. At the local level, the ACC provides direction to area agencies, forces, and PSYOP teams.
Paramilitary organizations normally do not have their own PSYOP teams. Civilian or armed forces organizations provide PSYOP support.
......

Hugh,

Can these documents be found online? Do you have copies?

Btw... nice to see you return to writing in the first person.