Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials other Virtually everything about their presentation implies the authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility
Rather, they merely imply this that and the
Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success the focus will shift to include the commentator as well
Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concem. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason
Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams Of course this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved Sometimes ane of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength
Anti conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for conspiracy theontts and usually for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain Or, one might more nightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do
Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance This likely stems trom intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial
Most people if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the image and are hot and cold with
respect to pretended emotions their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job and they often seem unable to act the role in character as well in a
communications medium as the, might be able in a real face-to-face conversation confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger
later - an emotional yo-yo
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game - where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style substance, and so forth. or simply give up
Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true seltimotives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat freudian, so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author For instance one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style on having only a grade school education, I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed
no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it
Time Constant. Recently discovered with respect to News Groups is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation
ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response The govemment and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for
an opportunity to do some damage SINCE DISINFO IN ANG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR or the visitor may be swayed towards
truth b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinfomationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect and even enough time to get permission or instruction from a formal chain of command
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attached twice for the same sin.
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
Rather, they merely imply this that and the
Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success the focus will shift to include the commentator as well
Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concem. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason
Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams Of course this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved Sometimes ane of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength
Anti conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for conspiracy theontts and usually for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain Or, one might more nightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do
Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial emotionalism and an unusually thick skin - an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance This likely stems trom intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial
Most people if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the image and are hot and cold with
respect to pretended emotions their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job and they often seem unable to act the role in character as well in a
communications medium as the, might be able in a real face-to-face conversation confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger
later - an emotional yo-yo
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game - where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style substance, and so forth. or simply give up
no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it
ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response The govemment and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage SINCE DISINFO IN ANG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR or the visitor may be swayed towards
truth b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinfomationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect and even enough time to get permission or instruction from a formal chain of command
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attached twice for the same sin.