| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jay Ref
Moderate Poster
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 511
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: What motivates the shills? |
 |
|
| Gravy wrote: | "Why We Fight..."
– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a wealthy Jewish "conspirator."
– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."
– Because they choose to spread their excrement at Ground Zero.
– Because it's a bad idea to ignore – or to deny the existence of – terrorists who say they want to kill me.
– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks to debate the creeps with dignity.
– Because firefighters thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maws of hell to save them.
– Because this isn't just about 9/11. It's about reason vs. deliberate ignorance, the joys of learning vs. intellectual cowardice, professionalism vs. hacksterism, the scientific method vs. blind faith, compassion vs. blind hatred.
– Because the creeps have difficulty with reality, and when we confront them in the flesh, demand that they produce evidence to back their claims, and publicly demonstrate how arrogantly uninformed they are, it's undeniably real. Not only can they not ignore us, we aggravate the hell out of them.
– Because I believe that, except for a few of them, they are capable of learning and have learned and will continue to learn. It's a hard slog, because rather than taking an analytical approach to the information we present, their default position is adversarial. Very well. My position is that if they refuse to sit down to a civilized tea with the facts, they will be hammered with them. I have some projects in the works that I think will be very effective in that regard. They've been at this for years. We've taken a few small steps in a few months and have already made a big difference.
– Because ever since Abby told me that the creeps also protest outside the New York Public Library, I can't wait to go and expose that delicious irony. (and maybe read some poetry: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty...")
– Because it's fun to be mysterious when my old drinking buddies ask if I've found some new drinking buddies or something (most don't know I'm involved with this insanity: I release that information on a need-to-know basis only).
– Because the gubmint salary, health plan, and pension are highly satisfactory, our jobs are unlikely to be outsourced to Mumbai, and Dick Cheney is holding my cat at knifepoint. |
Well said.
-z
_________________
"Knowledge is good"
-Emil Faber
"God in heaven. Here's the hard-headed, evidence-only freak who will not, like we CTers, indulge himself in self-inflating, utterly misconceived fantasies." -kbo234 (who is NOT a nazi) briefly makes sense |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
DeFecToR
Moderate Poster
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 782
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dunno Jay Lord. What motivates you?
_________________
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
-William James |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MiniMauve
Moderate Poster
Joined: 24 Aug 2006
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:01 am Post subject: Re: What motivates the shills? |
|
|
| Jay Ref wrote: | | Gravy wrote: | "Why We Fight..."
– So that on September 11, 2007, people can go to Ground Zero without running into a crowd of uniformed "patriots" marching behind a ranting charismatic leader to shout "Murderer!" outside the business of a wealthy Jewish "conspirator."
– Because these creeps have the nerve to call themselves a "truth movement."
– Because they choose to spread their excrement at Ground Zero.
– Because it's a bad idea to ignore – or to deny the existence of – terrorists who say they want to kill me.
– Because it's difficult for people who were more seriously affected by the attacks to debate the creeps with dignity.
– Because firefighters thanked us for learning about what they do and standing up for them. Because the creeps make it necessary to defend the people who would enter the maws of hell to save them.
– Because this isn't just about 9/11. It's about reason vs. deliberate ignorance, the joys of learning vs. intellectual cowardice, professionalism vs. hacksterism, the scientific method vs. blind faith, compassion vs. blind hatred.
– Because the creeps have difficulty with reality, and when we confront them in the flesh, demand that they produce evidence to back their claims, and publicly demonstrate how arrogantly uninformed they are, it's undeniably real. Not only can they not ignore us, we aggravate the hell out of them.
– Because I believe that, except for a few of them, they are capable of learning and have learned and will continue to learn. It's a hard slog, because rather than taking an analytical approach to the information we present, their default position is adversarial. Very well. My position is that if they refuse to sit down to a civilized tea with the facts, they will be hammered with them. I have some projects in the works that I think will be very effective in that regard. They've been at this for years. We've taken a few small steps in a few months and have already made a big difference.
– Because ever since Abby told me that the creeps also protest outside the New York Public Library, I can't wait to go and expose that delicious irony. (and maybe read some poetry: "Beauty is truth, truth beauty...")
– Because it's fun to be mysterious when my old drinking buddies ask if I've found some new drinking buddies or something (most don't know I'm involved with this insanity: I release that information on a need-to-know basis only).
– Because the gubmint salary, health plan, and pension are highly satisfactory, our jobs are unlikely to be outsourced to Mumbai, and Dick Cheney is holding my cat at knifepoint. |
Well said.
-z |
This is ridiculous. The Truth Movement are 'creeps' because they care about what sort of world we live in and are brave enough to risk their careers and more to do something about it? Even if you believe it is misguided, have the decency to recognize that their goals are honourable. This article disgusts me.
_________________
Stick to what you KNOW. All else is disinformation, intended or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lostpomme
Minor Poster
Joined: 13 Aug 2006
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well said 
_________________
War is when the government tells you who the bad guy is. Revolution is when you decide that for yourself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What is a shill? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
blackcat
Validated Poster
Joined: 07 May 2006
Posts: 2376
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 11:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Its a lying c*unt. See JayRef for an example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ComfortablyNumb wrote: | | What is a shill? |
Many of these Inside Job kooks believe that anyone who argues with them, attempts to answer their questions, or simply disagrees with them are literally on the payroll of a government psyops campaign. They actually believe that Jay Ref, aggle-rithm, I, and others have been hired by the government to post on internet message boards in an attempt to derail the Truthiness Movement. In other words, they believe we are "shills". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ally
Moderate Poster
Joined: 04 Aug 2005
Posts: 909
Location: banned
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | ComfortablyNumb wrote: | | What is a shill? |
Many of these Inside Job kooks believe that anyone who argues with them, attempts to answer their questions, or simply disagrees with them are literally on the payroll of a government psyops campaign. They actually believe that Jay Ref, aggle-rithm, I, and others have been hired by the government to post on internet message boards in an attempt to derail the Truthiness Movement. In other words, they believe we are "shills". |
if your not getting paid they you got a real complex, I think Freud called it being in denial. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:10 pm Post subject: Shill Definition |
|
|
Or, you could go to an authoritive source for a defintion - such as the Chamber's English Dictionary (1996, CD ROM edition), rather than posting opinion, which is what is more favoured by gravity deniers such as Chipmunk Stew et al.
shill shil, (slang; especially North American)
noun an accomplice to a tradesman, etc, who poses as a genuine customer to encourage trade or interest; a gambler's or con man's sidekick; a decoy.
Also verb intransitive.
[Probably abbreviation of shillaber]
(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 3:37 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | Or, you could go to an authoritive source for a defintion - such as the Chamber's English Dictionary (1996, CD ROM edition), rather than posting opinion, which is what is more favoured by gravity deniers such as Chipmunk Stew et al.
shill shil, (slang; especially North American)
noun an accomplice to a tradesman, etc, who poses as a genuine customer to encourage trade or interest; a gambler's or con man's sidekick; a decoy.
Also verb intransitive.
[Probably abbreviation of shillaber]
(c) Larousse plc. All rights reserved |
Like I said, Comfortably, these kooks believe that we are in the employ of the "real" perps behind 9/11, that we know the "real" truth and are purposefully perpetuating what we know is a lie. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ComfortablyNumb
Minor Poster
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 86
Location: Flintshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
Looks like I'm going to have to be careful what I say!
I signed the Offical Secrets Act in the mid 80's. Does that count? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 4:36 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | Like I said, Comfortably, these kooks believe that we are in the employ of the "real" perps behind 9/11, that we know the "real" truth and are purposefully perpetuating what we know is a lie. |
This is a typical response - I used a verbatim quote from a recognised source about the English language and it is responded to in a manner which is "playing the man not the ball", as some would say.
Whoever you are or aren't working offer, you are not addressing the basic evidence. That is the key point in all this. That includes the effects of gravity and definitions contained in said source referenced here.
Thanks for being self-documenting once again.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 5:28 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | Like I said, Comfortably, these kooks believe that we are in the employ of the "real" perps behind 9/11, that we know the "real" truth and are purposefully perpetuating what we know is a lie. |
This is a typical response - I used a verbatim quote from a recognised source about the English language and it is responded to in a manner which is "playing the man not the ball", as some would say.
Whoever you are or aren't working offer, you are not addressing the basic evidence. That is the key point in all this. That includes the effects of gravity and definitions contained in said source referenced here.
Thanks for being self-documenting once again. |
When people here refer to me as a shill, they are suggesting that I am "an accomplice to [the real perps] who poses as a genuine customer to encourage ... interest", "[the real perps'] sidekick", or "a decoy [for the real perps]." Do you disagree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:23 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: | | When people here refer to me as a shill, they are suggesting that I am "an accomplice to [the real perps] who poses as a genuine customer to encourage ... interest", "[the real perps'] sidekick", or "a decoy [for the real perps]." Do you disagree? |
As I alluded to in my post, I don't think that's the important issue here - the important issue from my perspective, as has been repeatedly demonstrated is that, you avoid factual statements and prefer to concentrate on personal opinions and interpretations of same.
I have no idea whether you are "working" for somebody or not - I could never prove it one way or another. What I have demonstrated is your criticism when someone posts a basic factual definition from a dictionary - even when this has nothing to do with 9/11 directly. So, people can then consider your interpretation of elements of factual 9/11 evidence on that basis and make their own minds up about your other posts and how seriously they should be taken etc etc.
Also, if you search through all my posts, I think you'll be hard pressed to find me calling anyone a shill - because from message postings alone, it would be difficult to prove - I am quite careful about what I say.
Debate over. Bye for now. No poetry this time I'm afraid. When the mood is right, maybe...
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: | | When people here refer to me as a shill, they are suggesting that I am "an accomplice to [the real perps] who poses as a genuine customer to encourage ... interest", "[the real perps'] sidekick", or "a decoy [for the real perps]." Do you disagree? |
As I alluded to in my post, I don't think that's the important issue here - the important issue from my perspective, as has been repeatedly demonstrated is that, you avoid factual statements and prefer to concentrate on personal opinions and interpretations of same.
I have no idea whether you are "working" for somebody or not - I could never prove it one way or another. What I have demonstrated is your criticism when someone posts a basic factual definition from a dictionary - even when this has nothing to do with 9/11 directly. |
Your definition didn't contradict mine. I agreed with it. You brought it up as though it contradicted me, when in fact it supported me. I'm presently criticizing your characterization of me as someone who relies on opinion rather than evidence--you're really stretching using this last exchange to prove your point.
| Quote: | | So, people can then consider your interpretation of elements of factual 9/11 evidence on that basis and make their own minds up about your other posts and how seriously they should be taken etc etc. |
If they're basing their impression of me on this last exchange then they're hopelessly lazy.
| Quote: | | Also, if you search through all my posts, I think you'll be hard pressed to find me calling anyone a shill - because from message postings alone, it would be difficult to prove - I am quite careful about what I say. |
No, I agree, you don't use the term shill that I've seen (can't say the same for some others, though.) If I recall correctly, you instead quite carefully claimed that Johnny Pixels was a forum bot:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3025 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Johnson
Mighty Poster
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1919
Location: Derbyshire
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| chipmunk stew wrote: |
No, I agree, you don't use the term shill that I've seen (can't say the same for some others, though.) If I recall correctly, you instead quite carefully claimed that Johnny Pixels was a forum bot:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3025 |
I'm flattered you were paying such close attention, but not surprised that you should apparently use such a tactic here.
These points have nothing really to do with 9/11 truth issues either. I was probably wrong about JP's nature - but I did seek a 2nd opinion as well. His posts were so devoid of any emotion and stuff, that's what I based my judgement on. He didn't seem prepared to present any evidence that he was a real person when I challenged him.
I also demonstrated his tactics (v similar to what has transpired on this thread) seemed to be to involve people in pointless circular arguments
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16805&highlight=expo sed#16805
And so I've demonstrated again the similarity of your own tactics.
QED.
_________________
Andrew
Ask the Tough Questions, Folks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chipmunk stew
Moderate Poster
Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 833
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 8:03 pm Post subject: Re: Shill Definition |
|
|
| Andrew Johnson wrote: | | chipmunk stew wrote: |
No, I agree, you don't use the term shill that I've seen (can't say the same for some others, though.) If I recall correctly, you instead quite carefully claimed that Johnny Pixels was a forum bot:
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?t=3025 |
I'm flattered you were paying such close attention, but not surprised that you should apparently use such a tactic here.
These points have nothing really to do with 9/11 truth issues either. |
Indeed, they don't. Who's the one going on about "tactics"? If you want to discuss 9/11, respond in, oh I don't know, just about any other thread I'm posting in.
| Quote: | I was probably wrong about JP's nature - but I did seek a 2nd opinion as well. His posts were so devoid of any emotion and stuff, that's what I based my judgement on. He didn't seem prepared to present any evidence that he was a real person when I challenged him.
I also demonstrated his tactics (v similar to what has transpired on this thread) seemed to be to involve people in pointless circular arguments
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=16805&highlight=expo sed#16805
And so I've demonstrated again the similarity of your own tactics.
QED. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
