Shills and forums

[xmasdale]

Posting on forums is an art and folk need to learn how to do it effectively. Here are some things that I have learnt from the experience.

If I use abusive language or insults, the person I’m abusing looks reasonable compared to me.

Abuse provokes abuse and should be avoided.

Sarcasm is a form of abuse and should be avoided.

Accusations of "Shill" on our forums are probably the most hurtful form of abuse that can be levelled and are therefore likely to be the most damaging to the argument of the abuser. I may strongly suspect that someone is a paid representative of some intelligence service or other but, as I can never prove it, it is far better not to make that claim in public. We need to accept that millions of people genuinely believe that false flag terrorism does not exist and that some of them will argue that point of view till the cows come home.

Humour which is genuinely funny, rather than humour which is at the expense of someone we are debating with, can help us to lighten up and to remember our common humanity. A sense of humour distinguishes us humans from the animals. Scornful humour, on the other hand, is actually a form of quick point-scoring and is likely to elicit similar countermeasures and to deflect attention away from the points being debated.

Nevertheless, security agencies do pay taxpayers’ money to people who try to influence public opinion in favour of policies advocated by extremely rich, powerful and self-centred forces. The armaments manufacturers, petroleum companies and international bankers stand to gain increased power and control over us all through current Middle-East wars and their outfall. The shills are certainly there on our forums, but in my opinion it is better to keep them guessing whether we have sussed who they are than to risk making false accusations.

I suggest they can be recognised by various forms of behaviour:
- a tendency not to engage truthfully with arguments which are put to them
- throwing dust in our eyes (retorting with irrelevancies which may steer debate away from areas where their arguments are weakest)
- delivering insults when they begin to lose an argument, which might rescue them by diverting the discussion on to whether the insult is fair, or may provoke counter-insults which can then be used to demonstrate that people they are debating with are getting personal rather than debating the issues.
- a tendency to lie in order to support their argument
- a tendency to post intensively on the forum for a short period and then to disappear when they find themselves losing the argument, only to be replaced by someone new (or perhaps just a new screen name)
- a tendency to give very little information about themselves in their profile.

But I don’t cry "shill" at people, particularly because I do not want by accident to falsely accuse a true believer in the beneficence of Bush, Blair and the powers that be. Such true believers are potentially convertible once they have been shown the facts. Even spooks are potentially convertible. We should never forget that among the ranks of supporters of the truth movement in Britain we have two ex-MI5 officers, one former British military intelligence officer and one former US naval intelligence officer. These people have come clean about their spook backgrounds and their experiences in the agencies they have quit has given them insight into how false flag operations are organised.

By the way, what are the origins of that word "Shill"? Someone said it is a short form of the Irish "shillelagh", a knobbly wooden club used for beating people over the head with. We should all remember that when you do hit someone with a shillelagh all hell breaks loose. Let’s not do it.

Noel

[ian neal]

Hi Noel

See the discussion on Jon Ronson thread regarding my suggestion to create a separate 'critics corner'. What do you think?

[Jane]

[Newspeak International]

Totally agree with Jane's comment,how right you are.

And of course with Noel,who's main point I have tried to follow,it is a frustrating experience for us,when the truth is so obvious to all that will see.

[paul wright]

[ian neal]

Jon Ronson thread

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=2482&start=255

The question is do we allow the status quo to continue or do we create a separate area for people who don't support the campaign to challenge us, thus keeping the rest of the boards solely for people who support the campaign

This is my preferred suggestion

[Graham]

I've been having a bit of a debate with "Silas" on his forums. I don't start till a few pages in.

http://www.jonronson.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1226

[9/11 Stole My Freedom]

[Jane]

Graham,

I've been reading your posts on the discussion group you give the link to. You enter on board like the voice of reason and calm, unlike the one who swears all the time...with him being called Albert I thought maybe he was an old man and at first he was just saying "Please watch this film" I thought poor old chap he must be getting really upset that people are just ignoring what he is saying when it's so important, but then as I read on.....!!!

You have also got the "Silas" character (whom I picture as the monk in The Da Vinci Code!!!) to enter into discussion with you.

Well done!

[IronSnot]

Jane, why don't you address Ron Johnson's post as above. Also I'd like to point out that Jon Ronson and Ron Johnson seem to be two completely different people. Shouting 'shill' doesn't make for a good look.

[Ann Johnson]

how confusing all this shill/shrill talk is?

[ian neal]