Prayers and positive thoughts to the families who lost their loved ones in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.
I cannot even imagine the pain, the loss, the grief. 20+ families will have empty seats at Christmas dinner. 20+ families will have Christmas gifts under their trees that will never be opened. 20 children have been denied the opportunity to experience life---to do the things that most of us take for granted.
I had the opportunity to see my child graduate from Kindergarten last year. I cried like a baby, because I realized he was no longer a baby (he will always be my baby). Some of those parents will never get to experience that, or any of the other things that parents cherish.
It's not right. It's not fair, but such is life.
We send our children off to elementary school every day. We expect phone calls saying they have tummy aches. They left an important paper at home. They're not feeling well. Perhaps, one of them fell down at recess and broke a bone. We would never in 10 million years expect to receive a call saying that there was a mass shooting at their elementary school.
For 20 parents, something we could never even imagine became reality. My heart breaks for them.
I also hope that positive thoughts and prayers will be going out to the Lanza family. This was a terrible act, one that has no place in our society. It takes a lot to aim and fire at targets so small and helpless. But at the end of the day, there is a lot to be learned from this tragedy. Systems are broken. Families are broken. HURT PEOPLE HURT PEOPLE.
This is not the first wake up call, but hopefully we actually wake up this time. There has to be more that we can do as a nation, as a society, as communities, as parents.
God has spoken, and none of us can question his will. He is always in control. This should not shake our faith, it should make it stronger and more necessary in our lives.
May they all rest in peace.
-Obscure, over & out
12.15.2012
12.09.2012
Disinformation (Long Reading, mostly C&P)
The topic of police lying to the public came up...while looking for cases, I came across the practice of disinformation. Found it interesting...info below! Note: I am not necessarily accusing MSP of this, but hmmm....
Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
(yes I copied and pasted from Wikipedia!!!)
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
(link here)
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. McCausland.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. Trista, Jeff, U4A, Cynthia Caron, etc.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. justiceforayla, U4A, John Pomerleau's polls
4. Use a 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 to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Life Insurance policy, Justin's other child, texts, etc...
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. 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 deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. Efforts to call people who read/support this blog all types of things! Trying to associate us with 'baby-killers'
6. Hit and 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 extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Peeter Hyatt
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. I know Justin, the Tudelas are involved in the crime, DHHS is part of an elaborate scheme to help Justin
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. LE Anon, Jeff, John P., Peeter Hyatt, commentators on U4A
9. 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. Ha! All of the people who are pro-Trista do this to a fault!
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. Changes to Trista's timeline and story...her contradictions...things she said that later proved to be FALSE
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. Trista's drug use...her affair with Justin...her blood being found on the sheets...etc.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. Hmm...the only thing I think of here is how MSP say 3 people know more, but the internet has increased that to 5-6-8 people being involved in a cover-up or crime.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. ?
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. They want us to explain the crime since there was supposedly no abduction, yet they cannot explain the crime themselves.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. This has certainly been done...
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. Where is Jessica Reynolds?! Cell phone records? Ayla's medical records? Why is the child support document redacted? THE DHHS CASE FILE THAT JEFF SAID HE WOULD RELEASE????
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. This has been done time and time again to detract from Trista's lies. Think: Phoebe had a gun...Courtney smiled at her...Justin was having an affair with Trista...Justin had another child...Courtney and Justin broke up...blah
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide 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.' This is a big reason why this blog was created! In the beginning, there was no place to support Justin---or to be neutral---without being attacked relentlessly.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Polygraph exam that Trista couldn't pass...filing process for Parental Rights and Responsibilities...drug addicts and child custody...Justin had to pass a drug test to drive a truck...cherry picking which MSP statements are valid (the broken arm WAS an accident)
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. Justin called Derek prior to calling 911...hmmmm...Phoebe had a gun in the home...
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. HMMMMMMM...
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. John P.'s infamous polls! LOL
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. Okay...
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. They tried to shut me down so many times...
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Can't say anyone has done this yet....except maybe Jessica Reynolds.
Eight Seven Traits of the Disinformationalist (link here)
by H. Michael Sweeney <
HMS@proparanoid.com>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
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. [I just described Peeter Hyatt]
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.[ME!] 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. [Wordman, Retired LE Anon, possibly Addie]
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. [Amen!] 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. [moles in closed groups?]
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. [Not sure this applies here]
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. [John P.]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. [HMMMM]
Overview
Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.
Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship, is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio and discrediting the opposition by association with many easily disproved false claims.
(yes I copied and pasted from Wikipedia!!!)
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues. McCausland.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit. Trista, Jeff, U4A, Cynthia Caron, etc.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which can have no basis in fact. justiceforayla, U4A, John Pomerleau's polls
4. Use a 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 to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues. Life Insurance policy, Justin's other child, texts, etc...
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. 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 deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues. Efforts to call people who read/support this blog all types of things! Trying to associate us with 'baby-killers'
6. Hit and 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 extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint. Peeter Hyatt
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive. I know Justin, the Tudelas are involved in the crime, DHHS is part of an elaborate scheme to help Justin
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon' and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources. LE Anon, Jeff, John P., Peeter Hyatt, commentators on U4A
9. 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. Ha! All of the people who are pro-Trista do this to a fault!
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source. Changes to Trista's timeline and story...her contradictions...things she said that later proved to be FALSE
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess' with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues. Trista's drug use...her affair with Justin...her blood being found on the sheets...etc.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. Hmm...the only thing I think of here is how MSP say 3 people know more, but the internet has increased that to 5-6-8 people being involved in a cover-up or crime.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which forbears any actual material fact. ?
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best with issues qualifying for rule 10. They want us to explain the crime since there was supposedly no abduction, yet they cannot explain the crime themselves.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place. This has certainly been done...
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue. Where is Jessica Reynolds?! Cell phone records? Ayla's medical records? Why is the child support document redacted? THE DHHS CASE FILE THAT JEFF SAID HE WOULD RELEASE????
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues. This has been done time and time again to detract from Trista's lies. Think: Phoebe had a gun...Courtney smiled at her...Justin was having an affair with Trista...Justin had another child...Courtney and Justin broke up...blah
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide 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.' This is a big reason why this blog was created! In the beginning, there was no place to support Justin---or to be neutral---without being attacked relentlessly.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance. Polygraph exam that Trista couldn't pass...filing process for Parental Rights and Responsibilities...drug addicts and child custody...Justin had to pass a drug test to drive a truck...cherry picking which MSP statements are valid (the broken arm WAS an accident)
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations -- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications. Justin called Derek prior to calling 911...hmmmm...Phoebe had a gun in the home...
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim. HMMMMMMM...
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively. John P.'s infamous polls! LOL
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes. Okay...
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health. They tried to shut me down so many times...
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. Can't say anyone has done this yet....except maybe Jessica Reynolds.
by H. Michael Sweeney <
HMS@proparanoid.com>
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
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. [I just described Peeter Hyatt]
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.[ME!] 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. [Wordman, Retired LE Anon, possibly Addie]
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. [Amen!] 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. [moles in closed groups?]
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. [Not sure this applies here]
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. [John P.]
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. [HMMMM]
12.05.2012
Irreplaceable
Quotables from Trista's latest interview: "There are those days that I wake up, and I'm like really? We're still...we're still doing this"
Yes--really, you're still doing this, and one would think you would be vowing to do it until your missing daughter made her way home.
"I still don't know where Ayla is, or what's going on, and then I see Raymond's face and that smile. Raymond, he does...enough for the both of them."
Hold on. Raymond does enough for the both of them? Ayla is her own person, a special little girl and she's missing. No one should be able to fill the void she left in her mother's heart and life; not a drug, not a man, not another child, nothing. Again, it seems like Trista is ready to just move on. I understand that Raymond needs a mommy, but still.
"...I've lost Ayla from it [drug use], and it sucks." As horrible as losing Ayla was, Reynolds said she’s thankful for a lot. A year ago, even before her daughter’s disappearance, Reynolds faced losing both of her children...Raymond, now the same age as Ayla was when she vanished, is a daily reminder of how close addiction to drugs and alcohol came to taking everything.If Justin is responsible for whatever happened to Ayla, I don't understand why Trista attributes the incident to her own drug use. Yes. she contributed to the situation, but Ayla visited Justin and something could have happened to her during one of those visits. Let's not forget that Trista has already said Ayla came back from every visit with something wrong. This, to me, is a giant leap on Trista's part...if she really had nothing to do with Ayla disappearing. Also, getting a flat tire on the way to work sucks. Starting your period before a romantic getaway sucks. Missing your kid's soccer game because you're on call and get a call to come in sucks. Your daughter going missing, partially due to your own action or inaction, doesn't just "suck".
"I couldn't imagine losing both of my kids for my stupidity, and that's what it was. It was stupidity." Reynolds said she partially blames herself for everything that has happened, but is grateful it’s not worse.So, she lost one kid and the rest is a wash? At least she's doing better now in her new apartment! Ayla paid the price for Trista's stupidity---according to Trista---and that sucks, but at least she didn't lose both kids to DHHS. As a parent, I would rather lose all of my little people to DHHS than to have one of them go missing under unknown circumstances. But, I'm not Trista...so I digress.
There is just something about Trista Reynolds that rubs me the wrong way. She keeps saying she "lost" Ayla, but from the lack of emotion and choice of words, you would think she lost SOMETHING, not SOMEONE. She seriously speaks about her children in a manner that I find offensive.
I lost one pair of sunglasses, but the other pair does enough for both of them.Children are not possessions or accessories, and Trista speaks about Ayla as though she is a possession and not a person. Even as far back as when Trista said she didn't have to "share" Ayla with anyone.
I lost one eyeliner, but my other one does enough for both of them.
I lost one phone, but the other one does enough for both of them.
These are my cookies, I don't have to share.Somehow, saying "this is my child, I don't have to share", seems very inappropriate. Saying "I lost one child, but the other one does enough for both of them" is inappropriate as well.
This is my laptop, I don't have to share.
Those are my socks, I don't have to share.
True story: I know someone who gave birth to twins, but one of them died during childbirth. The fact that one of her twins survived was not consolation that the other did not. I actually saw her argue with someone about the issue. In her view, saying "at least you still have one of them" minimizes the existence of the one who went to heaven. Trista seems to be saying "I lost Ayla, but at least I still have Raymond." I don't understand that line of thinking; I find it to be callous and insensitive.
Another little gem that stood out to me in the article:
Investigators have periodically performed searches of bridges and waterways around Waterville, but said those efforts have turned up nothing related to the case.If you'll recall, Trista and company have said that investigators found something related to Ayla during a particular search (waterway, dam, river?). MSP have never released what was found, to either the Reynolds or the public. I believe the family was waiting to be shown photos. From this article, I think it's safe to say that nothing was found. Once again, the Reynolds' family has misled or misinformed the masses.
Conclusion....
“When I look at him [Raymond] I think, ‘what will I tell him?’” she said. “I haven’t been able to put it into words yet. I don’t want to tell him something and have him start to blame me.”
Tell him the TRUTH, Trista.
Where is Ayla?
**NOTE** All of the above is my opinion, and I realize that two people can read the same article or watch the same video and come to very different conclusions. It's okay to disagree with me...I can't force you to be right. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)