If a CIA paid shill was posting here and you found out, you couldn't say anything

[JMDEM]

It is a felony to reveal the identity of someone clandestinely on the payroll of the CIA.

The CIA does put out millions of dollars a year into payments for just such shills, according to John Stockwell, highest ranking agent to come out and discuss what the CIA does. (Books: Praetorian Guard, In Search of Enemies, Killing Hope). According to Stockwell, many of them are college professors. I bet more than a few hang out on forums such as this one.

I find it amazing that a thread titled "Holy Mother Fucker the Church" is completely acceptable in the General Discussion forum and on the Greatest Threads Page, but anything discussing any conspiracy theory is first swarmed upon by a tag team of detractors and "debunkers", then put into a forum that doesn't get much exposure, and is also removed from the "Greatest Threads" page to further reduce its exposure. I can understand eventually putting such discussions into their correct forum, but to make them "disappear" seems downright weird to me.

As a final thought -- why aren't the theories of Sybil Edmunds, Naomi Wolfe, an Naomi Klein also considered conspiracy theories? I guess I can't figure out at all where the line is drawn between the "Kooky conspiracy nut theories" an conspiracy theories that are acceptable to discuss in the open. Apparently 9/11, all political assassinations, and election fraud issues are considered
"nut job theories", not to be discussed in the light of day.

Is the line drawn due to the ferociousness of the arguments that ensue? Well, if there are paid detractors here (that we would never learn about) then the debate can pretty much be controlled by a select few individuals, no? In addition, it seemed like the Hillary / Obama wars were allowed to rage for months, and they almost tore this place in two, yet they were not stifled.

[sandnsea]

1. It's very simple. EVIDENCE n/t

[Greyhound]

41. Nope. There's a great deal of evidence and even documentation verifying

events that are shunted off to the forums. So, evidence is not the deciding criteria.

[BuyingThyme]

42. Like the majority of eye witnesses being completely ignored

in favor of the official story? Stuff like that?

[sandnsea]

44. No, evidence means facts that haven't been refuted

The "evidence" surrounding some of the wacky Inside Job stuff has been refuted. And the "evidence" around some of the stolen election stuff amounts to one incident in one county somewhere. Too much of what passes for evidence is nothing more than hyperbole, and too often real evidence never sees the light of day because the hyperbole has taken over the conversation.

[BuyingThyme]

46. I refute that.

[BuyingThyme]

2. I don't think it's illegal for somebody to identify someone clandestinely on the payroll of the CIA.

ibtl

[Warren Stupidity]

3. So, in summary, Skinner works for the CIA.

[BuyingThyme]

6. That's very possible.

I don't say that on a personal level, but this is exactly the kind of thing the CIA would set up.

[KittyWampus]

32. I just carried that thought to the CIA having a fund drive where we give out hearts to each other

LOL!

[BuyingThyme]

34. I don't think you understand.

[KittyWampus]

40. where's your sense of whimsy?

seesh

[JMDEM]

12. I did not say or mean that.

What I meant is that certain topics draw such ferocious discussion that this forum seems to have no choice but to suppress them for whatever reasons. I'm not sure of those reasons.

[Why Syzygy]

4. Controlled by a "select few"

True.

[sixmile]

5. Is it a felony if you're only guessing?

I hope the agency has better things to tend to, but I doubt it.

[JMDEM]

8. I am running on what Stockwell said in his book

"The Praetorian Guard". So no I don't know this as an absolute fact. I'm relying on Stockwell.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Yep. Nobody may say that I'm on the payroll of the CIA.

Now please look very intently into my avatar...

[peacetalksforall]

9. The debunkers are quite easy to identify as are the AIPAC helpers. Then there

are freeper types who want DU to look bad.

I don't think the CIA/FBI/Military/Interpol types are very clever.

[creeksneakers2]

38. Debunkers are cool

Like with this thread here. Why would the CIA spend money trying to post on the Internet when there are millions of posts out there a day and nobody listens to anybody?

Unless someone can predict what will go viral and slip falsehoods onto the net that can change the result of something important, I don't see any profit here. Debunking is the last thing ever to go viral.

[Ikonoklast]

10. I am fairly certain that there are paid disseminators

of dis-information that post on this as well as other political websites.

Like some long-time posters here that are accepted as members in good standing, but are nothing but negative and contradictory in their posting, their agenda is usually fairly easy to spot.

[CJCRANE]

11. {REDACTED}

{CLASSIFIED}

[DeepBlueC]

17. lol

[dbt]

13. If you caught this website in violation of its own Rules,

you couldn't say anything either.

[BuyingThyme]

14. While we're at it, why are the JFK threads being sent to the dungeon?

Was there a decision made recently? An incident? Was it not so recent and I just missed it?

[Occam Bandage]

15. Are they highly speculative conspiracy theories?

Then they go in the dungeon, per the rules.

[BuyingThyme]

18. What rules?

[Occam Bandage]

24. Marquess of Queensberry rules, obviously.

Or, you know, the DU rules.

Do not quote or link to "conspiracy theory" websites, except in our September 11 forum, which is the only forum on Democratic Underground where we permit members to debate highly speculative conspiracy theories. A reasonable person should be able to identify a conspiracy theory website without much difficulty.

[BuyingThyme]

29. Haven't JFK threads been permitted in GD until, like, today?

[Occam Bandage]

36. I honestly have no idea. I don't have much interest in JFK threads. If they've changed their

policy of enforcement, I'd find that somewhat surprising, and it's fair to ask about that.

[BuyingThyme]

43. Hey, wait, I just realized something.

The JFK thread I'm thinking of was started by somebody who DOESN'T believe in conspiracy to murder President Kennedy.

Maybe I have this whole thing backwards.

[dbt]

21. Or do they get in the way of someone's money?

Would those Rules be the ones that are so selectively enforced here? You know. The ones that a certain protected class are allowed to break with such impunity?

[Occam Bandage]

25. Only we CIA members are allowed to discuss Kennedy conspiracy theories, to protect our money.

[TahitiNut]

16. Wrong. Read the law more closely.

There are several (somewhat independent) prequalifiers to make it unlawful ... such as a security clearance that permitted one to obtain such information to begin with. Mens rea is another condition - one must KNOW (not just suspect) that someone's a covert agent and it can't be thought to be "general knowledge."

Not EVERY 'thing I wouldn't do' is unlawful or even immoral.

[EFerrari]

19. What college professor has time to do something like that?

Anyway, give me an application.

[JMDEM]

31. ????

Let's say you are making $70,000 a year as a college professor, and the CIA offers you an extra $100,000 a year to put out articles that THEY wrote under your name pushing some point they want to push. Stockwell says this happens all the time. No work, but a lot of money.

[Octafish]

45. Guy named McAdams comes to mind.

John McAdams researches and comments on the assassination of Presidente Kennedy.

Runs roughshod over anyone who doesn't agree with Warren Commission.

Hi, Doc! Not sayin', just sayin'.

[JMDEM]

54. Yes, McAdams

I've known him since 1992 on the alt.conspiracy.jfk boards, back before the web existed.

He was a professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey. Naval intelligence was his specialty, I believe.

[screembloodymurder]

20. I am 100% sure building #7 was demolished.

It's no conspiracy, it's a fact.

[Bolo Boffin]

22. You are 100% wrong. n/t

[BuyingThyme]

23. Conspiracies are facts.

[leftstreet]

26. LOL Did you mean to prove the OP's point?

[mmonk]

27. Can't be. If that were true, someone could get convicted for it,

not just obstruction or perjury.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Why do you continue to support and post at a website where the CIA is allowed to run rampant?

Seriously. You think that a few paid shills are all that's needed to take over a website?

This place has an Ignore button on every post and an Alert button as well. When you find someone who you think is a paid CIA shill, alert their post and inform the moderators of your evidence supporting this accusation. If they don't do anything about it, then put the paid shill on your Ignore list. That doesn't stop the paid shills (in your opinion) from posting what they consider to be rebuttal of your posts, but what do you care if they're just paid CIA shills?

The truth is, you know good and darned well that there are probably no paid shills here at all. DUers are a diverse bunch and not all of us think the same way as you on every issue. You can learn a lot from the people you disagree with, but only as long as you think of them as human and upfront about how they think.

[BuyingThyme]

30. You can't expect people to just uproot and become Quakers.

Oh... Wait... Maybe the Quaker thing doesn't work here.

[leftstreet]

39. If these 'shills' are paid, the CIA should get its money back

The disinfo-oids are so obvious as to be funny

[Kansas Wyatt]

33. Since when has it been legal for the CIA to be used against the American People?

General rule.... The USA is guilty of every crime imagined, whether people want to accept this or not. Especially the CIA.
'They (enemy) would do it to us, so we have a right to do it too.'

It's also known as a Republican 'strategizing.'

[sce56]

53. Take it from Shrubs Mouth

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." —Washington, D.C., Aug. 5, 2004 Video of this quote Audio of this quote

[arcadian]

35. Your information is wrong. It is not a felony.

Per haps if you are also a government employee or contractor and came by the information of a CIA agent in the course of your work, then it would be considered a felony. But if you as a private citizen came across the info and revealed that person to be a covert agent then it is not ilegal.

[G_j]

37. to me

it's sad that so many bright people are gone, and so many abrasive, and even disruptive, further to the right (ok "center" if it makes some ppl happy) people remain.

[barbtries]

47. your post brought to my mind

the felonies committed by the bushies with respect to valerie plame. but i guess if i did it it would be treated as a felony, and i'd go to prison.

for the record i don't believe the OCT regarding 911, nor that JFK, MLK, or RFK were killed by lone assassins.

[BuyingThyme]

48. I'd like to take a moment to identify Judith Miller as a clandestine CIA asset.

Resume.

[ddeclue]

49. Sorry but this isn't as public a forum as you think it is...it has rules and owners.

If you want a public forum to discuss conspiracy theories take your soap box down to the real public square and jump up on it and start spouting - and if you really don't expect to be heckled there either... then keep your day job because show business isn't for you...

[BuyingThyme]

51. Conspiracy theories are the backbone of this public forum.

From elections, to wars, to efforts to undermine our civil rights, it's all about the conspiracies and our theories in those regards.

[ddeclue]

55. Umm..nope...they aren't they go to the conspiracy dungeon

away with ye now..

[JMDEM]

56. My mistake

I thought freedom of speech was a Democratic ideal. I must have been entirely wrong.

[ddeclue]

58. yep..this place has rules...deal with it...nt

[ddeclue]

50. This is SO flame bait and calling out the mods!

Do you REALLY expect not to get locked friend?

[BuyingThyme]

52. Chocolate is delicious. But not necessarily bait.

[ddeclue]

57. You know some people are now saying..choclate. ..flames. ..not the same thing...

[BuyingThyme]

59. It's a question of intent.

[ddeclue]

61. No it's a question of kind...

Flames are flames..

choclate is yummy.

[JMDEM]

60. Wow -- you are upset!

Not flame bait. Just posing the question -- where is the dividing line between "conspiracies" and "acceptable discussion".

So far there has been very little flaming going on in this thread, it seems.

[ddeclue]

62. The OP is accusatory and derogatory of other members and the mods.

that in and of itself makes it flamebait.

[Iggo]

63. RE: "Holy Mother Fucker the Church"

First of all, read the thread. If you HAVE read it already, I think you have an interesting definition of completely acceptable. Nance takes a mild beating in there.

I do understand your point about different treatment for 'reasonable' conspiracy theories vs 'wackjob' conspiracy theories. But that is also nothing new, and certainly not restricted to to the Democratic Underground.

[omega minimo]

64. paranoia

Paranoia is in the eye of the beholder.

"anything discussing any conspiracy theory is first swarmed upon by a tag team of detractors and "debunkers", then put into a forum that doesn't get much exposure, and is also removed from the "Greatest Threads" page to further reduce its exposure. I can understand eventually putting such discussions into their correct forum, but to make them "disappear" seems downright weird to me."


What you describe, what's considered "kooky" and fair game fair game for attack, extends to a whole range of topics that are progressive, but are treated as "fringe."

The problem with discussions on most of those is not the topic but the behavior, which is not consistently respected under DU Rules, which would prevent the detractors and attackers if they followed them.

The problem is not "disagreement" but blunt force posts intended to shut down discssion -- maybe even the thread -- for other DUers. If the initial posts of "disagreement" actually resembled discussion, it could work. Instead, it is "first swarmed upon by a tag team of detractors and "debunkers"."

The unique opportunity that DU provides to discuss openly with many others, NOT in an echo chamber, and learn from each other, on many topics is prevented by blatant hostility and an unidentified prejudgment of what "normal" is.

Many of those topics are interconnected and are crucial for discussion. The fact that they aren't tolerated or accepted or allowed to breathe is a mystery.

[MilesColtrane]

65. IBTL

[cbayer]

66. Locking

Please do not start threads to call out other members or question the decisions of the moderators. If you feel there is a rule violation, please use the alert button. If you do not agree with the decisions of the moderators, feel free to contact the administrators of the site.

Thanks,

cbayer
DU Moderator