hoi.polloi wrote: But also often by agents, agitators or what we might presume is service personnel for some kind of agency or order or group. Are you familiar or unfamiliar with groups of military persons whose job it is to disrupt online dialogue?
I've yet to meet a single one. Where are you seeing them?
That does seem awfully naïve for someone who believes I've
only ever graduated high school — as if that qualified me as an intelligent person anyway. I've met more intelligent drop outs than college professors.
Larkness wrote:Of course I've been accused of being a shill for many reasons. For being an atheist, a christian, promoting gun control, promoting gun ownership, for being a jew lover, for being racist, for not promoting the white race and other bizarre reasons. It's a big internet out there.
Wow, so you've been trolling a lot of Internet communities. You don't seem to have much respect for any if that keeps happening to you.
hoi.polloi wrote:That is, in fact, what we may have to do indeed. Can you elaborate on the role of the public affairs officer? Are they a sort of "public relations" manager? Is it someone we could send a complaint or question to about possible traitors within the U.S. military, who are lying to the American public? Is it a place we could express concern about military actions done on civilians?
You can ask them anything you want. They probably will say they don't know, tell you what they're authorized to say, or refer you to someone else. http://www.cnic.navy.mil/regions/cnrnw/ ... ctory.html
The phone number is (360) 627-4046/4031/4030 How is it that you do not know to simply call a military public affairs officer?
Well, I suspected there may have been someone like that but I suspected I would get the run-around, as you just explained that they might give me. What would interest us about calling someone who will say they don't know, who will not hear us, or who will "refer us to someone else"? That doesn't sound like a strong selling point for giving them a call. Still, I may do as you back-handedly suggest and see what comes of it.
hoi.polloi wrote:The concern is that nobody knows. That's kind of a big problem if you suspect those people of immense levels of treachery against freedom and democracy.
Then what are you doing to find out?
Well, I tried asking someone apparently employed by them, but they said they didn't know who actually employed them. Perhaps I was only told what they were authorized to say, or I may be referred to someone else?
hoi.polloi wrote:nor any document that permits someone else to take my life because of something I said.
Depending on where you live, you don't need to sign a document to be subject to the death penalty. I was no more liable to be executed just because I was in the military. The Navy doesn't work that way; they haven't executed anyone for over 150 years. The military on death row now are all convicted rapists and murders.
That shows how effective the threat of death row is for revealing a secret. Thanks for sharing that. Makes a lot of sense with our research.
hoi.polloi wrote: Please understand that I really really mean no harm or insult.
Looked like a blatant insult to me. I don't see an apology anywhere in your post.
I tend not to apologize for things I didn't say. Since you won't hear me tell you I am not insulting you and I mean no harm, what more can I do? I am sorry when anyone is so insecure that I haven't been able to help that person gain confidence and self-respect and an ability to really be free in thought and action. That would go for you too, if you could hear that. I wish you well, whomever you may be, if you are indeed a person.
hoi.polloi wrote:How can you say that if you have ever learned "classified" information? Explain, please, better language we can use to describe the problem that a free civilian man cannot speak freely about any subject.
have no superior officer appointed over me as I did in the military. I've not been subject to military orders for over 13 years. I merely have a civilian supervisor now. I speak about anything I damn well please. I choose not to speak of secrets I learned in the military.
I see. You have a civilian supervisor, so you choose not to speak of secrets. That sounds pretty wise. And slightly creepy.
hoi.polloi wrote:I was referring to you dropping links to NASA, which seemed to be your attempt at serving as your explanation for a phenomenon rather than specifically addressing and answering in your own words the questions we have posed about said phenomena (or lack thereof in the case of unproven principles NASA claims to use to support their bogus launch videos).
So when simonshack says that NASA makes a bogus claim, I'm supposed to use some other source of information to show that he is wrong? That sounds like a very strange thing to request of me.
No, you seem to have misunderstood. If NASA is shown to have made a bogus claim and you show a place where NASA contradicts itself, that doesn't make the initial claim more true. Science either works on predictable principles or it is still exploring them or it doesn't work because it's bogus.
hoi.polloi wrote:Well, yes. But it's not really "you" — remember. The problem we have is the manner in which your arguments may be formed (or pre-formed) by the training you received.
I prefer that you judge my arguments by the content of the argument. Sounds fair and simple right?
I don't want to be fair and simple, I want to be biased to your opinion in order to consider it and weight it as a possibility. If I were fair and judged your arguments by their content, I would be forced to see them as fairly empty statements of endorsing authoritative texts, mixed with a petulant self-entitlement for implicit trust.
hoi.polloi wrote:let us try to avoid inflammatory language,
Good advice, I hope you decide to follow it the next time a new member arrives at the forum who doesn't think exactly the same way you do.
I will continue to try. Good luck in that big internet out there you keep getting called "shill" in.