Keywords Rule...but Jeff Wells can't seem to see this.

[Searcher08]

I agree. I would like to see Hugh's own site, created in an introductory format, accessible to people who don't know about the CIA's control of the media. As far as I know that doesn't exist out there; it would be a real contribution. You could link to the famous Carl Bernstein article right on the front page, then get into KWH, etc., with regular blogging.

And still contribute at RI- I'm just saying, something permanent, too. The negativity towards Jeff is obviously going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

This is an excellent idea.
I have often wondered why Hugh doesn't do a Wiki...
To set up one, find a web host that does php/mysql, and that does Softaculous or similar 1-Click installs, with MediaWiki open source software (the sort that runs Wikipedia.)
You can set up up to give people view access only.
Hosting is very competitive these days. Have a WordPress blog as a front end with a link to the wiki.

The whole thing would take several tens of minutes to set up.

Result - far wider audience; clearer presentation of material; easier to sort wheat from chaff

Sorted.


The Golden Rule of Web Fora:
The person who pays the bills, makes the rules

[Bruce Dazzling]

Only a few short months ago I would have thought that Hugh's OP was just the ravings of a lunatic, but after going through the extensive moderator interview process, immersion training, and subsequent vow of allegiance, I must grudgingly admit that he's right on the money.

In fact, Rule #1 is:

"Allow trolls to go apeshit hiding the KWH technology, while overzealously policing any attempt to expose said technology."

Jeff runs a tight ship. Actually, I'm probably putting my family in jeopardy by telling you all this.

[Jeff]

Bruce? My office. Now.

[Wombaticus Rex]

It's the only thing that matters and the only way to understand it is through the only honest man alive who sees it: Hugh Manatee. Heard that routine before.

I've been going through your PsyOps forum material, your notes, your "proof" for a long time now. I'm keenly interested in the subject, too. I find very, very, very little support for your actual theories in terms of how you analyze the posts here. Why? Because your entire contention is that this was all developed in secrecy and only really understood by you. So you're not only relieved from the burden of proof, you're also absolved of any accountability when RI folks see huge, gaping holes in your narratives and chronology.

It's wearying and I ultimately just feel bad for you. No more antipathy here, just don't have the energy for it. But what I see when I see Hugh makes me feel sad.

[Wombaticus Rex]

To be clear, not in a sneering way. At the local #Occupy actions, we get no shortage of "I feel bad for you" from people who would like to help us by bussing us to gas chambers...just to be clear I do feel honest sympathy and I'm glad I "met" you because it's a good cautionary tale about apophenia.

Also, I do honestly hope you can break out of the prison you're building. All that data will still be there when you leave, you'll just be a kinder, calmer person and probably make much more accurate calls too.

[Simulist]

The negativity towards Jeff is obviously going to rub a lot of people the wrong way.

Yes, it is. And it should.

Keywords Rule...but Jeff Wells can't seem to see this.

Calling out the Site Owner in a thread title is bad form, just as calling out other posters in a thread title is bad form.

Hugh, the fact that you're still welcomed here in spite of your negativity towards Jeff speaks volumes about Jeff's good character.

(And if you were in Jeff's shoes, Hugh, you'd have probably bounced the ass out of someone who treated you the way you treat Jeff, ages ago.)

[Jeff]

Hugh,

as long as they don't transgress the general rules of the board, a member's convictions are beside the point, as far as I'm concerned, compared to a member's conduct.

All cautions, warnings, stern words, spankings and suspensions you've received here, whether at my hand or a moderator's, have been on account of your habitual and pernicious disruption of other members' threads.

I created posting guidelines and a subforum to accommodate your idée fixe. This is as good as it's going to get here for you. Will you not be content until this is Rigorous Keywords? Then you'll need to launch that yourself. The domain is probably available. I'll even link to it and wish you well.

[barracuda]

Rigorous Keywords

I think I'd go with "Hijacking Intuition", myself. It just seems more... exciting.

[vanlose kid]

...


cthulHUGH

*

[Searcher08]

Rigorous Keywords

I think I'd go with "Hijacking Intuition", myself. It just seems more... exciting.

Rigouous Hijacking

is full of WIN

Mr Wells, you are a model of graciousness. You should be running a Lovecraftian finishing school...(*)
















(*)
Or MAYBE you ALREADY ARE and we just don't know it

[barracuda]

cthulHUGH

I've come to the conclusion that Hugh's popularity stems almost entirely from the lovable quality of his username mascot. Had he chosen some less likable and cute blubberous water-mammal, like, I dunno, a pygmy sperm whale, he'd have been banned years ago.

[wordspeak2]

Probably true. The Hugh Manatee thing was very clever.

[undead]

Obviously he has some fans. I mean what are the odds that someone would create this:

[Searcher08]

cthulHUGH

I've come to the conclusion that Hugh's popularity stems almost entirely from the lovable quality of his username mascot. Had he chosen some less likable and cute blubberous water-mammal, like, I dunno, a pygmy sperm whale, he'd have been banned years ago.

Werd.

Dugong of LoveMuffinry
Really Jolly Newscycle Walrus
Free Willy Metatag
Pinniped Pursues Propaganda

would have not lasted

[Nordic]

cthulHUGH

I've come to the conclusion that Hugh's popularity stems almost entirely from the lovable quality of his username mascot. Had he chosen some less likable and cute blubberous water-mammal, like, I dunno, a pygmy sperm whale, he'd have been banned years ago.

because it's so true!