With reference to the linked OP of DUer Octafish...

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

Poll question: With reference to the linked OP of DUer Octafish...

...posted below, do you believe CIA "media assets" have been given these same, or very similar, instructions for handling challenges to the 9-11 Commission's report, that they were apparently given for handling those elements who questioned the Warren Commission's findings on the Kennedy assassination?

And if so, do you think our citizenry now has too much access to alternative media for it to work this time?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=105797&mesg_id=105984

On edit: minor grammar/spelling correction.

[HamdenRice]

1. The proof is here

Right here in the 9/11 Forum -- both the work of government assets and their inability to stifle discussion in this new medium.

[SidDithers]

2. *** cough cough bullshit cough cough *** nt

Sid

[HamdenRice]

3. Is that your entire method of proof?

Why do OCTabots think that references to animal feces constitute logical proofs?

Izapuzzlement!

[SidDithers]

4. Just expressing an opinion, Hamden...

Why you think an opinion, posted on a messageboard, constitutes a logical proof is beyond me.

Sid

[HamdenRice]

5. Sorry, Sid, try again!

"cough ... bullshit" is not an opinion. It's an empty exclamation devoid of any information or reasoning whatsoever. An opinion is a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty. There is no "belief" or "judgment" expressed in a bare reference to animal feces.

What you and other OCTabots have isn't opinion, it's coprolalia, a brain disorder that causes "involuntary swearing or the involuntary utterance of obscene words or socially inappropriate and derogatory remarks." The root of the name of the disease comes from the Greek κόπρος meaning "feces" and λαλία meaning "babbling, meaningless talk."

But that's what OCTabots do, isn't it? Why is that? Why do references to animal waste count as either proofs or opinions among the OCTabots?

[SidDithers]

6. Well, then, why don't you just tell me what my opinion is...

and then I'll sign my name to it when you're done.

Sid

[HamdenRice]

7. Can I? Can I really? Can I write your opinion? OK!

I Sid Dithers do freely express the following opinion: Yes, indeed, the present state of the 9/11 Forum reflects part of the disinformation campaign that Donald Rumsfeld publicly stated the Bush administration would wage on the internet. The disruptive rhetorical tactics of DU's OCTabots reflect that they are witting or unwitting accomplices in this disinformation campaign. Proof that the OCTabots are at minimum unwitting accomplices in this disinformation campaign is found in their linking to government run disinformation websites, including without limitation, the State Department website concerning "conspiracy theories."

The fact that in informal DU polls, 80% to 85% of DUers believe either MIHOP or LIHOP demonstrates that the Bush administration's disinformation campaign is failing because the new medium provides uncensored information, uncontrolled flows of information and discussions unmediated by the corporate mainstream media.

Yours truly,


__________________________ (sign here)

Sid Dithers


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. For the first time ever...

...I find myself in complete agreement with Sid on this one.

:rofl:

[SidDithers]

9. If that's truly what you think "OCTabots" believe...

then there's no real reason for further discourse.

Plonk.

Sid

[HamdenRice]

10. "Plonk" is not an argument

Obviously it's not what I think YOU believe; but you said I could write your statement for you.

:rofl:

So have OCTabots cited Bush administration sources or not? If they have then I've made my case.

QED

[William Seger]

11. Why do CTists think naked, unsubstantiated assertions constitute logical proofs?