Stevie
The Force is Strong With This One
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
I had to vote Excellent, as few 9/11 Truth Sites like Wing-TV, are taking the time to expose lies cunningly injected to murk serious analysis of the 9/11 events. All this flak, just for speaking the truth?
BTW the poll is out right biased against Wing-TV.
I had to vote Excellent, as few 9/11 Truth Sites like Wing-TV, are taking the time to expose lies cunningly injected to murk serious analysis of the 9/11 events. All this flak, just for speaking the truth?
BTW the poll is out right biased against Wing-TV.
anart
A Disturbance in the Force
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
Well, see what happens when you sleep in late? ;)
I see we've had a fake poll set up - to convince the ignorant that ignorance is 'great!' - yet another moron posting here in short, tempermental, accusatory, unintelligent phrases, and many well thought out responses that prove how ridiculous the poll was in the first place, by the SotT forumites.
Another morning's work done well - and more lessons learned for us.
Lisa, we get interference whether you are here or not, and what you are doing is important enough to shout from the rooftops - I think people here feel very glad that we can use our 'rooftop' for that ( I could be wrong, but I really don't think I am).
Well, see what happens when you sleep in late? ;)
I see we've had a fake poll set up - to convince the ignorant that ignorance is 'great!' - yet another moron posting here in short, tempermental, accusatory, unintelligent phrases, and many well thought out responses that prove how ridiculous the poll was in the first place, by the SotT forumites.
Another morning's work done well - and more lessons learned for us.
Lisa, we get interference whether you are here or not, and what you are doing is important enough to shout from the rooftops - I think people here feel very glad that we can use our 'rooftop' for that ( I could be wrong, but I really don't think I am).
R
Richard
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
Submitting a poll to members of these sites is really irrelevant and unproductive right from the start. It is pretty much the same as polling Wolves as to whether it is good or bad to eat sheep. You know beforehand what the answer is going to be: "Good!... and 'Tasty'!".
The activities here on the Signs Foruim and those of Wing TV probably ARE "getting in their way" as they are exposing the Cointelpro activities of these supposed '911 Truth' organizations which are not really looking for exposure of any 'truth'.
'Respect' must be EARNED! What reason do we have to 'respect' any or all of those who simply were the victims of a brutal criminal action?
I think what all 'normal' people have is empathy and compassion for all those people. Since this is what I feel and what I think all of us who really care also think, the search for the REAL truth about the events is much more important for everyone who was so murdered in this brutal way than such a nonsensical notion as "respect" as you are putting it. Even if such respect is some sort of consideration, the much better way of 'respecting' these people for their 'involuntary sacrifice' would be to get to the truth and have the perpetrators prosecuted for these crimes.
Your bringing up this concept is really nothing but another 'red herring' designed to distort and deflect any considerations by those who really are searching for and discovering what is true and what is not about the 911 events. This is also another of the very many Cointelpro methods used to manipulate people.
Anyone who is of a serious intent to find the truth would have actually read the articles Laura provided from her blog which lay out the scenario of Cointelpro in great detail and very precisely. They would have easily seen how all this operates and ends up deceiving so many people. Since you make no mention of these articles at all, as if they were never even mentioned here, it is obvious that you have no interest at all in what is really true.
Perhaps you have really read all those articles and are now assigned to do 'damage control'?
As 'Sherlock Holmes' said "If you eliminate what is impossible, what remains MUST be the truth!" When you apply this maxim to Jones and Blood it is quite clear they are liars, manipulators and CoIntel agents.LiveFreeOrDie said:
What is "good" depends upon one's AIM. It seems their aim is to distract and deflect any serious effort to not only get to the truth about the events of 911 but to delay or prevent any REAL investigation by the proper authorities about what really happened so as to be able to prosecute those who are actually responsible for this and allow all the populace to know who these people are and what they have done.LiveFreeOrDie said:
Submitting a poll to members of these sites is really irrelevant and unproductive right from the start. It is pretty much the same as polling Wolves as to whether it is good or bad to eat sheep. You know beforehand what the answer is going to be: "Good!... and 'Tasty'!".
The activities here on the Signs Foruim and those of Wing TV probably ARE "getting in their way" as they are exposing the Cointelpro activities of these supposed '911 Truth' organizations which are not really looking for exposure of any 'truth'.
What in blazes is that supposed to mean?LiveFreeOrDie said:
'Respect' must be EARNED! What reason do we have to 'respect' any or all of those who simply were the victims of a brutal criminal action?
I think what all 'normal' people have is empathy and compassion for all those people. Since this is what I feel and what I think all of us who really care also think, the search for the REAL truth about the events is much more important for everyone who was so murdered in this brutal way than such a nonsensical notion as "respect" as you are putting it. Even if such respect is some sort of consideration, the much better way of 'respecting' these people for their 'involuntary sacrifice' would be to get to the truth and have the perpetrators prosecuted for these crimes.
Your bringing up this concept is really nothing but another 'red herring' designed to distort and deflect any considerations by those who really are searching for and discovering what is true and what is not about the 911 events. This is also another of the very many Cointelpro methods used to manipulate people.
Anyone with that opinion has either got to be so ignorant and stupid as to not be considered a rational being or must be considered a Cointelpro agent. I tend to think it is the latter.LiveFreeOrDie said:
Anyone who is of a serious intent to find the truth would have actually read the articles Laura provided from her blog which lay out the scenario of Cointelpro in great detail and very precisely. They would have easily seen how all this operates and ends up deceiving so many people. Since you make no mention of these articles at all, as if they were never even mentioned here, it is obvious that you have no interest at all in what is really true.
Perhaps you have really read all those articles and are now assigned to do 'damage control'?
G
Guest
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
This littel interchange escaped my notice until after it was over. In any case, it's an interesting pattern:
1) An individual comes presenting a "poll" in living color as a tit for tat to the wing-TV poll. The individual gloats over the poll, patting himself on the back for his cleverness.
2) By the second page of the thread said poll is proven to be bogus. For all anyone knows, one person could have voted a hundred times. This scratches the individual, who then tries to continue the tit-for-tat tactic (a favoured one by such people obviously). He wants proof that the wing-TV poll is not bogus.
3) This is countered on page 3 by the following brief comment:
5) Notice said individual's response:
I guess he failed to bring home the bacon this time. It'll be interesting to see if he tries the "poll" tactic again. Personally, I think the boys from the hood are calling manpower again for more temps.
This littel interchange escaped my notice until after it was over. In any case, it's an interesting pattern:
1) An individual comes presenting a "poll" in living color as a tit for tat to the wing-TV poll. The individual gloats over the poll, patting himself on the back for his cleverness.
2) By the second page of the thread said poll is proven to be bogus. For all anyone knows, one person could have voted a hundred times. This scratches the individual, who then tries to continue the tit-for-tat tactic (a favoured one by such people obviously). He wants proof that the wing-TV poll is not bogus.
3) This is countered on page 3 by the following brief comment:
4)Said individual ignores this information and still grasps at straws (more to fill space with innendoes than anything else), and by page four his personal connection with Revere is revealed.Laura said:
5) Notice said individual's response:
I don't know about anyone else but it seems his IQ dropped down a few notches here. It's more likely that his mask slipped a bit. When asked who he is, his sheepish (almost childish) reply cries out "hands in cookie jar!":
6) The IQ of this person seems to have suddenly sprung a leak. I could imagine him tearing out drawers looking for a script to follow before he completely reverts to primate status. This scripting is exemplified by the following obviously prepared statement, again followed by a swift reply:
7) Although said individual dropped (or was dropped) from the scene, his motives came back as an echo of his departure:Laura said:
By "this s**t", I gather he is referring to the truth movement.
I guess he failed to bring home the bacon this time. It'll be interesting to see if he tries the "poll" tactic again. Personally, I think the boys from the hood are calling manpower again for more temps.
G
Guest
Guest
Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co
That reminds me of the schoolyard bully trick of picking a fight so both bully and victim get punished. Revere doesn't care about looking immature, but the point is to discredit wing-TV isn't it?
This is way too deliberate and calculated to be just a spontaneous act of warped morals. People like those behind Revere Radio usually have low attention spans. For them to focus on something that they probably couldn't care less about, a motivating force is needed. And that force is, most likely, cash.
Maybe they're not from the "government". Surely even medium level Pathocrats don't concern themselves with every two-bit hack that does their dirty work. It is more likely that there is a long "chain of command" here. However, they are on SOMEBODY'S payroll, as are probably most of the great dissenters that have appeared on this forum of late.
And I don't see what the big block is to accept this. Pathocrats have been bankrolling revolutions, movements and institutions allegedly fighting for truth, freedom and the rights of the people for ages. I guess people accept such things in hindsight (if the pathocrats allow it, as far as most are concerned). While the drama plays out in real-time, however, a hole in the sand is home for the majority of heads.
That Revere is immature and lacks moral standards goes without saying. These qualities, however, do not seem to me to be enough to explain the rampant obsession they have with Lisa and Wing-TV. And then you have the defenders of Jones, Rense etc. They all seem to be pushing that this is somehow a "childish" vendetta.
That reminds me of the schoolyard bully trick of picking a fight so both bully and victim get punished. Revere doesn't care about looking immature, but the point is to discredit wing-TV isn't it?
This is way too deliberate and calculated to be just a spontaneous act of warped morals. People like those behind Revere Radio usually have low attention spans. For them to focus on something that they probably couldn't care less about, a motivating force is needed. And that force is, most likely, cash.
Maybe they're not from the "government". Surely even medium level Pathocrats don't concern themselves with every two-bit hack that does their dirty work. It is more likely that there is a long "chain of command" here. However, they are on SOMEBODY'S payroll, as are probably most of the great dissenters that have appeared on this forum of late.
And I don't see what the big block is to accept this. Pathocrats have been bankrolling revolutions, movements and institutions allegedly fighting for truth, freedom and the rights of the people for ages. I guess people accept such things in hindsight (if the pathocrats allow it, as far as most are concerned). While the drama plays out in real-time, however, a hole in the sand is home for the majority of heads.
I
Iain'tgoin'tonocamp!
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
I don't want to sound like I am trying to back up LiveFreeorDie, but I do have my suspicions about Wing-TV nonetheless, if you go to WingTV's website, try clicking on the online store, the first item up for sale is: "The New World Order Exposed" By Victor Thorn. Included are three rave reviews of the book. The book may well be an excellent read, but my point of bringing all this up is that the second review is by a man named Jim Marrs. Now, some people like Jim Marrs, some people think he is a fraud, I for one cannot join either camp because I have not read any of his material.
What I have done is visited Jim Marrs' website, and clicked on the 'Friends of Jim' link, and I was surprised to see that Jim's third friend from the bottom was none other than... Jeff Rense. So, what I have so far is that a well known conspiracy writer (Marrs) wrote a good review of Thorn's book, and that reveiwer is apparently a good friend of Mr. Bird Flu. So, in my mind, this raises a few questions, namely, why does Wing-TV have a review by Jim Marrs? Have Victor and Lisa never visited Jim Marrs site? Have they not noticed that Jim is buddy-buddy with Rense? Given the poll they did (with Rense voted second and with 12% of the vote) and the many articles they've written exposing him, Wing-TV has done quite a bit of research into Rense, so it would seem likely that they would come across what I have found.
Assuming they have, would it not be a good idea to remove a review by someone who considers Jeff Rense a friend? This connection, along with Lisa's ferocious writing style, has led me to question the validity of their purpose in this community. Please note I am not saying anything towards SOTT, because I have seen nor heard nothing that would convince me that this site is in cahoots with anyone but the finest researchers and forum members. So, I would like everyones thoughts on this matter, am I stretching it? I don't think I am, but I may well be.
So, this dude is quite obviously either misled or an active participant in corrupting the few good sources of info I have left. From the looks of it the poll is a bunch of bull. Ark, Laura, and all the rest, excellent work. There seems to be an endless supply of these guys.LiveFreeOrDie said:
I don't want to sound like I am trying to back up LiveFreeorDie, but I do have my suspicions about Wing-TV nonetheless, if you go to WingTV's website, try clicking on the online store, the first item up for sale is: "The New World Order Exposed" By Victor Thorn. Included are three rave reviews of the book. The book may well be an excellent read, but my point of bringing all this up is that the second review is by a man named Jim Marrs. Now, some people like Jim Marrs, some people think he is a fraud, I for one cannot join either camp because I have not read any of his material.
What I have done is visited Jim Marrs' website, and clicked on the 'Friends of Jim' link, and I was surprised to see that Jim's third friend from the bottom was none other than... Jeff Rense. So, what I have so far is that a well known conspiracy writer (Marrs) wrote a good review of Thorn's book, and that reveiwer is apparently a good friend of Mr. Bird Flu. So, in my mind, this raises a few questions, namely, why does Wing-TV have a review by Jim Marrs? Have Victor and Lisa never visited Jim Marrs site? Have they not noticed that Jim is buddy-buddy with Rense? Given the poll they did (with Rense voted second and with 12% of the vote) and the many articles they've written exposing him, Wing-TV has done quite a bit of research into Rense, so it would seem likely that they would come across what I have found.
Assuming they have, would it not be a good idea to remove a review by someone who considers Jeff Rense a friend? This connection, along with Lisa's ferocious writing style, has led me to question the validity of their purpose in this community. Please note I am not saying anything towards SOTT, because I have seen nor heard nothing that would convince me that this site is in cahoots with anyone but the finest researchers and forum members. So, I would like everyones thoughts on this matter, am I stretching it? I don't think I am, but I may well be.
Lisa Guliani
The Living Force
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
"why does Wing-TV have a review by Jim Marrs? Have Victor and Lisa never visited Jim Marrs site? Have they not noticed that Jim is buddy-buddy with Rense? Given the poll they did (with Rense voted second and with 12% of the vote) and the many articles they've written exposing him, Wing-TV has done quite a bit of research into Rense, so it would seem likely that they would come across what I have found."
1. Jim Marrs wrote a review of Victor Thorn's book, The New World Order Exposed, an important book recently requested for inclusion in a special collection of the Library of Congress by a congressional staffer.
2. We have had Jim Marrs on our show more than once in the past. He has written some good books on political conspiracy. We appreciated the review. I believe Thorn has written a few things about one or two of Marrs' books as well. Since you have not read any of Marrs' material, then I guess you have no idea as to the content of these works. I suggest you check them out before passing total judgment on Jim Marrs.
3. Jim Marrs has made appearances on Rense. I am not in any sort of regular contact with Jim Marrs, so I don't know how close he is to Rense, but I suspect that he uses this program to SELL his books, as it is an established and well-known program with a (suspected) large following. I don't know Jim Marrs well enough to tell you why he associates with Rense, but Jim Marrs has always been kind and decent to Thorn and to me and we met him in person last year in D.C. at the truth convergence rally. We enjoyed having him on our show as well. He was an interesting guest. Perhaps you should ask Marrs directly as to the nature of his association with Rense.
4. So, what you're saying is, because Marrs has appeared on Rense's show, we should remove his review of Thorn's book. Does this reasoning actually make sense to you? How do you know Jim Marrs considers jeff Rense a friend? Jack blood has stated in the past that Victor and I were his 'friends" right on his show! this wasn't true. Jack Blood was an acquaintance we "met" through the Internet. We appeared on his show once or twice and he appeared on ours a few times. To characterize us as 'friends" gave the public a false sense of closeness. It was for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. It is possible that Marrs considers Rense a friend, but I have no knowledge of the true nature of that association, and I don't know that you do either. I think you are making some presumptions based upon speculation.
My "ferocious" writing style?
Interesting choice of word. What exactly does that mean? Ferocious.
Ferocious like falsely labeling someone a prostitute and a drug addict and then broadcasting those lies to the public?
That kind of ferociousness?
Lisa
"why does Wing-TV have a review by Jim Marrs? Have Victor and Lisa never visited Jim Marrs site? Have they not noticed that Jim is buddy-buddy with Rense? Given the poll they did (with Rense voted second and with 12% of the vote) and the many articles they've written exposing him, Wing-TV has done quite a bit of research into Rense, so it would seem likely that they would come across what I have found."
1. Jim Marrs wrote a review of Victor Thorn's book, The New World Order Exposed, an important book recently requested for inclusion in a special collection of the Library of Congress by a congressional staffer.
2. We have had Jim Marrs on our show more than once in the past. He has written some good books on political conspiracy. We appreciated the review. I believe Thorn has written a few things about one or two of Marrs' books as well. Since you have not read any of Marrs' material, then I guess you have no idea as to the content of these works. I suggest you check them out before passing total judgment on Jim Marrs.
3. Jim Marrs has made appearances on Rense. I am not in any sort of regular contact with Jim Marrs, so I don't know how close he is to Rense, but I suspect that he uses this program to SELL his books, as it is an established and well-known program with a (suspected) large following. I don't know Jim Marrs well enough to tell you why he associates with Rense, but Jim Marrs has always been kind and decent to Thorn and to me and we met him in person last year in D.C. at the truth convergence rally. We enjoyed having him on our show as well. He was an interesting guest. Perhaps you should ask Marrs directly as to the nature of his association with Rense.
4. So, what you're saying is, because Marrs has appeared on Rense's show, we should remove his review of Thorn's book. Does this reasoning actually make sense to you? How do you know Jim Marrs considers jeff Rense a friend? Jack blood has stated in the past that Victor and I were his 'friends" right on his show! this wasn't true. Jack Blood was an acquaintance we "met" through the Internet. We appeared on his show once or twice and he appeared on ours a few times. To characterize us as 'friends" gave the public a false sense of closeness. It was for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. It is possible that Marrs considers Rense a friend, but I have no knowledge of the true nature of that association, and I don't know that you do either. I think you are making some presumptions based upon speculation.
My "ferocious" writing style?
Interesting choice of word. What exactly does that mean? Ferocious.
Ferocious like falsely labeling someone a prostitute and a drug addict and then broadcasting those lies to the public?
That kind of ferociousness?
Lisa
Superman Returns: WING TV repels Pathological Pirates AKA Rense & Co
And as I mentioned in another thread, I don't think this forum is very attractive to isolationist psychopaths - those who are just looking for victims, not working for anyone etc. Other than the fact that it seems a little too weird that their "childishness" would cause them to put in so much effort and energy into discrediting Wing TV, this forum and this network is designed from the ground up for critical and objective analysis of everything - psychopathy being one of the main things we try to understand. And knowing how any predator always seeks the easiest prey/victim, this forum would be the last place to look for a victim - it's like a common thief trying to rob a police station or the FBI building - it's unlikely without a "higher" motivation/reason.
So I agree, I think there's definitely a chain of command here, a hierarchy, and this is why most of the psychopaths we see coming to this forum somehow end up being related and connected to one another.
And as I mentioned in another thread, I don't think this forum is very attractive to isolationist psychopaths - those who are just looking for victims, not working for anyone etc. Other than the fact that it seems a little too weird that their "childishness" would cause them to put in so much effort and energy into discrediting Wing TV, this forum and this network is designed from the ground up for critical and objective analysis of everything - psychopathy being one of the main things we try to understand. And knowing how any predator always seeks the easiest prey/victim, this forum would be the last place to look for a victim - it's like a common thief trying to rob a police station or the FBI building - it's unlikely without a "higher" motivation/reason.
So I agree, I think there's definitely a chain of command here, a hierarchy, and this is why most of the psychopaths we see coming to this forum somehow end up being related and connected to one another.
D
dhess31
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
I'm coming into this thread a little late because I was busy this morning but...
I voted excellent and here was my comment:
"I think they are doing a fantastic job; just the fact that someone wanted a poll like this goes to show that. If Lisa and Co. WEREN'T doing such a good job, then ya'll wouldn't be so irritated. Truth hurts does it not?"
You know, I haven't really chimed in too much on this whole Wing-TV vs. AJ and Rense thing other than to give Lisa some encouragemnt.
Don't those guys KNOW they are making our whole point FOR us? It is so blatently obvious that it is just ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack.
This has been a great learning experience for the people whose discernment might not otherwise be up-to-par.
This isn't even GOOD COINTELPRO. They are a bunch of amateurs.
Don
I'm coming into this thread a little late because I was busy this morning but...
I voted excellent and here was my comment:
"I think they are doing a fantastic job; just the fact that someone wanted a poll like this goes to show that. If Lisa and Co. WEREN'T doing such a good job, then ya'll wouldn't be so irritated. Truth hurts does it not?"
You know, I haven't really chimed in too much on this whole Wing-TV vs. AJ and Rense thing other than to give Lisa some encouragemnt.
Don't those guys KNOW they are making our whole point FOR us? It is so blatently obvious that it is just ad hominem attack after ad hominem attack.
This has been a great learning experience for the people whose discernment might not otherwise be up-to-par.
This isn't even GOOD COINTELPRO. They are a bunch of amateurs.
Don
R
Richard
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
It is also possible that Wing TV has just not thought of going through EVERY single article and thread to find and eliminate any possible links that any contributor may have to what are now know as Cointelpro sites.
There are lots of possible reasons why they may not have eliminated Jim Marr's review.
If one examines all the materials the answer would be immediately obvious.
This leads me to question what is your real purpose for bringing up this slight irregularity and how it might relate at all to the "validity of their purpose".
It would probably be better to consider the Sum-Total of someone's work than concentrate upon some minor discrpancy relating to the work in toto. That being said, there are occasions where (seemingly) minor details are very worthy of investigarion and can illuminate what was once very dark scenery.Iain'tgoin'tonocamp said:
Is it possible that Jim read the book and thought it was a good one?Iain'tgoin'tonocamp said:
It should be noted that Cass/Signs was linking to Rense before it was determined that he was actually running a Cointelpro site. The same may be true for Marrs listing of Rense as a 'friend' at his site.Iain'tgoin'tonocamp said:
It is also possible that Wing TV has just not thought of going through EVERY single article and thread to find and eliminate any possible links that any contributor may have to what are now know as Cointelpro sites.
There are lots of possible reasons why they may not have eliminated Jim Marr's review.
So, you are attemting to tell us that this very tenuous connection to Rense has made you " question the validity of their purpose in this community"?Iain'tgoin'tonocamp said:
If one examines all the materials the answer would be immediately obvious.
This leads me to question what is your real purpose for bringing up this slight irregularity and how it might relate at all to the "validity of their purpose".
B
Borean
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
While reading the thread, I noticed that LFOD had a spelling issue and used the word "there" when "their" should have been used several times, including in the poll.
"After the email was sent, the following day the FBI called Robb Revere. The call is on the Internet for all to here at this link Link , listen for yourself. Now, for someone that claims to be a gatekeeper of the "truth" movement, going to the FBI over a radio show is a bit STRANGE to say the least. At the time, myself and Jack Blood had worked out our differences and I called him and let him know about Wing going to the FBI. He couldn't believe it. He invited us on his show the following day. Meanwhile, Wing TV called Ted Anderson and threatened a lawsuit if we appeared on Jack's show to play the FBI tape. Now, why exactly would they not want that tape aired? Were they ashamed, were they afraid there status in the "truth" movement would be jeopardized?" [...]
Hmmmm....
(Also noticing that "piece" was spelled as "peice".)
I would say that there is a high probability that LiveFreeOrDie is Sonny Crack.Ark said:
While reading the thread, I noticed that LFOD had a spelling issue and used the word "there" when "their" should have been used several times, including in the poll.
If you go to http://www.revereradio.net/e107/news.php and scroll down the first piece entitled, WING-TV HIT PEICE RESPONSE BY: Sonny Crack, to paragraph #6, you'll read:
"After the email was sent, the following day the FBI called Robb Revere. The call is on the Internet for all to here at this link Link , listen for yourself. Now, for someone that claims to be a gatekeeper of the "truth" movement, going to the FBI over a radio show is a bit STRANGE to say the least. At the time, myself and Jack Blood had worked out our differences and I called him and let him know about Wing going to the FBI. He couldn't believe it. He invited us on his show the following day. Meanwhile, Wing TV called Ted Anderson and threatened a lawsuit if we appeared on Jack's show to play the FBI tape. Now, why exactly would they not want that tape aired? Were they ashamed, were they afraid there status in the "truth" movement would be jeopardized?" [...]
Hmmmm....
(Also noticing that "piece" was spelled as "peice".)
I
Iain'tgoin'tonocamp!
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
1. A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.
2. A person whom one knows; an acquaintance.
3. A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade.
4. One who supports, sympathizes with, or patronizes a group, cause, or movement: friends of the clean air movement.
By any definition except the second, a friend is something special. It may well be that Jim considers Rense an acquaintance, in which case I suppose my suspicions are unfounded. However, if Mr. Marrs likens Mr. Rense to any of the other definitions, then I would say my question remains legitimate. To be fair, I have not passed judgment on Mr. Marrs, I simply considered the fact that he and Rense are "friends", and that Marrs has reviewed one of Victor's books, as something worthy of consideration.
Also, my choice of words to describe Lisa's writing style was based on my observation that of all the forums and forum members of which I have read (not counting the cointelpro moles), Lisa's seems to be the most, well, colorful, I think would be a better way to put it. I meant no harm by my observations, and I also have nothing to hide, so please reserve your paranoia for those who truly deserve it.
Well, I suppose it's the fact that Jeff Rense is listed on Jim Marrs website as a friend. Now, a "friend" can mean many things to different people, but lets go by the proper definition shall we? Dictionary.com gives the following explanations for the word friend:Lisa said:
1. A person whom one knows, likes, and trusts.
2. A person whom one knows; an acquaintance.
3. A person with whom one is allied in a struggle or cause; a comrade.
4. One who supports, sympathizes with, or patronizes a group, cause, or movement: friends of the clean air movement.
By any definition except the second, a friend is something special. It may well be that Jim considers Rense an acquaintance, in which case I suppose my suspicions are unfounded. However, if Mr. Marrs likens Mr. Rense to any of the other definitions, then I would say my question remains legitimate. To be fair, I have not passed judgment on Mr. Marrs, I simply considered the fact that he and Rense are "friends", and that Marrs has reviewed one of Victor's books, as something worthy of consideration.
No, what I was saying was that you and Victor have done plenty of work exposing Rense as a "shill", and Rense is connected back to you through his association with Mr. Marrs, who has reviewed one of your books. To the average reader, who may not understand how easily the term "friend" is tossed around in your circles, a connection of this nature would at first seem suspicious, though not necessarily true, which I did mention in my previous post. For the record, I haven't made ANY presumptions, I have speculated, and there is nothing wrong with that. As well I mentioned the possibility that I was "stretching" things, and given yours and other members thoughts on this matter, it looks like I am.Lisa said:
Also, my choice of words to describe Lisa's writing style was based on my observation that of all the forums and forum members of which I have read (not counting the cointelpro moles), Lisa's seems to be the most, well, colorful, I think would be a better way to put it. I meant no harm by my observations, and I also have nothing to hide, so please reserve your paranoia for those who truly deserve it.
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
In June 2003 Laura's article was published on Rense. Soon after laura was invited by Rense for a radio show. Then Rense published defamatory article by Weidner and Bridges. The show then took place though Laura was aware of a possible set-up and did not allow Rense to lead the discussion.
See Laura's post here. We have also used rense to advertise "Secret History". This was before we have learned and analyzed other things, and connected the dots. That is how we learn. By experience. The fact that someone has someone else on "friends list" means very little or nothing if separated from other facts. For instance I may still have on some long forgotten friends list Jeff Rense (ven if I am sure I never had him). Anything follows from it? Nothing, except that some time ago I was thinking differently than I am thinking today. And tomorrow I may again adapt my thinking to the new facts - if such facts surface. That is how it should be.
I am going to help you here (even if I do not know whether you will appreciate my help or not).Iain'tgoin'tonocamp! said:
In June 2003 Laura's article was published on Rense. Soon after laura was invited by Rense for a radio show. Then Rense published defamatory article by Weidner and Bridges. The show then took place though Laura was aware of a possible set-up and did not allow Rense to lead the discussion.
See Laura's post here. We have also used rense to advertise "Secret History". This was before we have learned and analyzed other things, and connected the dots. That is how we learn. By experience. The fact that someone has someone else on "friends list" means very little or nothing if separated from other facts. For instance I may still have on some long forgotten friends list Jeff Rense (ven if I am sure I never had him). Anything follows from it? Nothing, except that some time ago I was thinking differently than I am thinking today. And tomorrow I may again adapt my thinking to the new facts - if such facts surface. That is how it should be.
G
Guest
Guest
WINGTV Opinion poll; Day 3 - on Wingtv
One thing I think that was observed is that Rense makes it a point to get a lot of people on his show, many of them sincere. He surrounds himself with a lot of colleagues, and he doesn't do it because he's a great guy. Many of these people want to be heard, and for the most part will never find the audience that Rense's high profile site offers, as Lisa mentioned. So the man is a bit of a spider in a web collecting both flies to feed on, and other little spiders to do his dirtier work, while he stays hidden and clean in his web palace.
The point is there are BOTH sincere and insincere people, and all of those who were pointed out as friends of Rense AND disinformants were also evaluated on their own merit (or lack thereof). There may be also be those who want to benefit from Rense without feeding him or doing his dirty work.
Even so, it's not a free ride, but some sincere people might think tipping a hat to Jeff in a minor way can get them exposure, and get the word out, and get them a decent return. That doesn't make them unethical. Sure it would be best if everyone boycotted Rense and the rest, but at this point they've been drawn in and for some of them extricating themselves without suffering consequences might be a delicate operation.
There are others, on the other hand, like Sartre (another friend of Rense), who called Lisa and "advised" her to also buddy up with the big boys if she wants to stay afloat (I couldn't find the article). Those types are "buddy" types, which is a different story than giving someone an occasional citation. So each case needs to be taken on its own merit, and just having exposure on Rense, and in turn agreeing to acknowledge him, is not by itself cause to condemn someone.
What needs to be changed is to create other options, and reveal the real culprits, the owners of the sites. If you start chasing every single person purely because they were seen in the same room with Rense or Jones, without any other indications, you are going on a witch hunt and doing exactly what these characters want to promote is going on.
It's one thing to defend yourself when attacked, and another to attack to keep from having to defend yourself. Such gung ho tactics are what these disinformants want in all fields of expression. They want you to take on a few innocents so you can then be the bad guy for real. I would rather let a few shills slide than make a mistake and place a sincere individual on the other side of the line.
What we want is to isolate the liars. This is done by bringing them out of the woodwork. And the only thing that brings liars out of the woodwork is the truth. When confronted with the truth, liars expose themselves, and those are the ones that do the damage.
So you may have misunderstood the whole "friends of Rense" thing. These "friends" are those who have been proven to do dirty work for the guy, not those "guilty by association". It's a tangled web, but a good piece of advice is that saying about being wiley as serpents and gentle as doves.
One thing I think that was observed is that Rense makes it a point to get a lot of people on his show, many of them sincere. He surrounds himself with a lot of colleagues, and he doesn't do it because he's a great guy. Many of these people want to be heard, and for the most part will never find the audience that Rense's high profile site offers, as Lisa mentioned. So the man is a bit of a spider in a web collecting both flies to feed on, and other little spiders to do his dirtier work, while he stays hidden and clean in his web palace.
The point is there are BOTH sincere and insincere people, and all of those who were pointed out as friends of Rense AND disinformants were also evaluated on their own merit (or lack thereof). There may be also be those who want to benefit from Rense without feeding him or doing his dirty work.
Even so, it's not a free ride, but some sincere people might think tipping a hat to Jeff in a minor way can get them exposure, and get the word out, and get them a decent return. That doesn't make them unethical. Sure it would be best if everyone boycotted Rense and the rest, but at this point they've been drawn in and for some of them extricating themselves without suffering consequences might be a delicate operation.
There are others, on the other hand, like Sartre (another friend of Rense), who called Lisa and "advised" her to also buddy up with the big boys if she wants to stay afloat (I couldn't find the article). Those types are "buddy" types, which is a different story than giving someone an occasional citation. So each case needs to be taken on its own merit, and just having exposure on Rense, and in turn agreeing to acknowledge him, is not by itself cause to condemn someone.
What needs to be changed is to create other options, and reveal the real culprits, the owners of the sites. If you start chasing every single person purely because they were seen in the same room with Rense or Jones, without any other indications, you are going on a witch hunt and doing exactly what these characters want to promote is going on.
It's one thing to defend yourself when attacked, and another to attack to keep from having to defend yourself. Such gung ho tactics are what these disinformants want in all fields of expression. They want you to take on a few innocents so you can then be the bad guy for real. I would rather let a few shills slide than make a mistake and place a sincere individual on the other side of the line.
What we want is to isolate the liars. This is done by bringing them out of the woodwork. And the only thing that brings liars out of the woodwork is the truth. When confronted with the truth, liars expose themselves, and those are the ones that do the damage.
So you may have misunderstood the whole "friends of Rense" thing. These "friends" are those who have been proven to do dirty work for the guy, not those "guilty by association". It's a tangled web, but a good piece of advice is that saying about being wiley as serpents and gentle as doves.
