Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 12:11:00 AM
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 12:13:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 12:25:00 AM
Quote
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated.
Which attacks are you referring to in particular?
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 12:28:00 AM
Quote
So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
Not an unreasonable question...but that would be going on the assumption that each and every survivor has all of his marbles intact, and well...that would be a little bit of a stretch, now, wouldn't it? :smile:
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 12:34:00 AM
Post by: The Butcher on January 12, 2006, 12:40:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 07:13:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-11 21:40:00, The Butcher wrote:
"You should see what happens when i bust open your fucking SKULL!!!!!!"
Are you just bored or what? You post some pretty stupid shit. Maybe your not a straight survivor at all, but some kid playing on his computer who thinks he's funny. YAWWWWN.....
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:18:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:21:00 AM
Quote
You should see some of the violent, rageful shit going down in the I Just thread!
What "violent, rageful shit"? Come on, do you really think that Dr. Fucktard is real? :rofl:
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 03:53:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 06:18:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And who the fuck, may I ask , are you? What do you contribute to this board? Anything? YAAAWWWNN yourself."
Do you really consider " watch what happens when I bust open your fucking skull" a contribution??
Come on now..if you really are an adult than I'm sure you can do better than that. But then again, maybe that was the best you could do.
Post by: teachback on January 12, 2006, 03:57:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 04:19:00 PM
Why so defensive? Are you the same person as the butcher and if not, why do you care?
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 04:25:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 04:35:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 13:25:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I guess he cares because here you are, as mere baghead like myself, criticizing a literary master like the butcher. You should learn your place and show some respect before jumping to conclusions like that, you really should. "
Ooohhh.. I bet you are in the same 7th grade class as the butcher!! Come on, I won't tell, do you have a crush on him or what??
And what conclusion exactly was it that I was jumping to? That " bashing your fucking skull in" is the writing of a literary master?
Oh right, sorry. Tha must have taken him DAYS to come up with that one
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 05:15:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 05:46:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 14:15:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Duh....maybe try clicking on "find posts by" y'dumbass."
why would I want to find posts by a dumbass :lol:
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 05:52:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 05:56:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 05:56:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 14:52:00, Anonymous wrote:
"So, idiot...let's get back to your original asinine statement about the "violent and rageful" stuff on the I just thread.. :wave: "
I would comment but I wasn't the one who made that post, sorry
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 05:59:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 07:00:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 08:34:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-11 21:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
"
Aha. Then the next trick is just to realize that asserting an ongoing replay of the obstacle is part of the system of open and cooperative wordplay, and need not be recognized as an obstacle at all, in fact, there is the likely locus of the problem. Quantum physics suggests that the observer ( goddamnit this fucking sucks, come on you guys, we all know we're getting our brains washed here, right?!?) affects the observed. You decided that obstacle was an obstacle.
I say bully on Ginger's assertion that she owns this Straight forum. WE create it, by our words here. I say justice demands that she turn the moderation over to us.
Discuss.
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:01:00 PM
Quote
Aha. Then the next trick is just to realize that asserting an ongoing replay of the obstacle is part of the system of open and cooperative wordplay, and need not be recognized as an obstacle at all, in fact, there is the likely locus of the problem.
Observe how a thread starter posits a serious topic. Then watch how quickly that topic is targeted, misdirected, and ultimately subverted. This process occurs like clockwork. Pick any thread and you will see the same pattern in action. Through successive posts that follow predictable patterns of distortion, the original idea is choked out of existence. This is not a random phenomenon. Granted, the obstacle has to work within a system of words, but its success in this case rests in its ability to undermine productive discourse to the maximum degree.
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:32:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:40:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 18:01:00, Anonymous wrote:
"QuoteAha. Then the next trick is just to realize that asserting an ongoing replay of the obstacle is part of the system of open and cooperative wordplay, and need not be recognized as an obstacle at all, in fact, there is the likely locus of the problem.
Observe how a thread starter posits a serious topic. Then watch how quickly that topic is targeted, misdirected, and ultimately subverted. This process occurs like clockwork. Pick any thread and you will see the same pattern in action. Through successive posts that follow predictable patterns of distortion, the original idea is choked out of existence. This is not a random phenomenon. Granted, the obstacle has to work within a system of words, but its success in this case rests in its ability to undermine productive discourse to the maximum degree. "
ALRIGHT. I will consider the alternative. They come from the fingers of the Borg. Is that what you are looking for?
Please, go on. I am curious.
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:49:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 18:32:00, Anonymous wrote:
"You may very well be clinically insane. Just a thought. "
:wstupid:
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:55:00 PM
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 09:58:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 18:55:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Hahahahahaaa!! blah blah blah, fuck blah blah shit"
Awwww, I'm sorry. That wasn't really meant towards you. It just caught me at the right moment and made me laugh. Just that one, matter of fact sentence amidst all the chaos and pillaging.
i'm still cracking up tho! :smokin:
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 10:00:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 17:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
I say bully on Ginger's assertion that she owns this Straight forum. WE create it, by our words here. I say justice demands that she turn the moderation over to us.
Discuss."
::boycott::
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 10:05:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 19:00:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Quote
On 2006-01-12 17:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
I say bully on Ginger's assertion that she owns this Straight forum. WE create it, by our words here. I say justice demands that she turn the moderation over to us.
Discuss."
::boycott:: "
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: webcrawler on January 12, 2006, 10:07:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 19:00:00, Anonymous
::boycott:: "
Please do, but wait I doubt that will happen because some people around here live to make others miserable. Funny how two of them want to act so concerned about people's feelings now after they have trolled people non-stop here. Should I demand the crap you two posted regarding me be removed too?
I see "slander" only matters when it happens to them. EX-P I don't know whether to laugh or vomit about you now trying to take the high road after all the havoc you caused in this place.
Post by: Anonymous on January 12, 2006, 11:01:00 PM
Care to comment?
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 01:56:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 17:34:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Quote
On 2006-01-11 21:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
"
Aha. Then the next trick is just to realize that asserting an ongoing replay of the obstacle is part of the system of open and cooperative wordplay, and need not be recognized as an obstacle at all, in fact, there is the likely locus of the problem. Quantum physics suggests that the observer ( goddamnit this fucking sucks, come on you guys, we all know we're getting our brains washed here, right?!?) affects the observed. You decided that obstacle was an obstacle.
I say bully on Ginger's assertion that she owns this Straight forum. WE create it, by our words here. I say justice demands that she turn the moderation over to us.
Discuss."
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... t=10#27664 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=3785&forum=7&start=10#27664)
On 2003-12-09 08:46:00, animals all of us wrote:
"It's funny how people like Nazi let words over the Internet affect them so bad.
I kind of like a bucket of KFC now and again, moron. What do you have against people that pick up your garbage cans ??? Those 'kinds' of people make pension and bonus and retirement. They have lives and can afford to be humble, which ALL of this is more than you will ever afford.
I am certain that if we met on the street somewhere your words would be different Nazi."
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 02:02:00 AM
Quote
ALRIGHT. I will consider the alternative. They come from the fingers of the Borg. Is that what you are looking for?
Please, go on. I am curious.
I would say that a group of connected, financed individuals are working hard to subvert this forum, possibly from a template of subversion tactics with proven results. I would think that they are more collusive and trained than anyone might want to acknowledge. This is nothing mysterious or new to anyone. But this environment is so rife with mean-spiritedness, confusion, puerility, malaise, and any number of other symptoms, that it is difficult to ignore the possibility that many people, even very technical people, have underestimated the seriousness, coordination, and ingenuity of the attack machine.
Post by: Antigen on January 13, 2006, 02:13:00 AM
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/ (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/)
She called the Larry King show and said....
Quote
KING: I'm going to hold the show a little longer because I understand we have Oprah on the phone. Let's see what she has to say. Are you there, my friend?
WINFREY: Hello, Larry, how are you?
KING: Hello, dear one, how are you doing?
WINFREY: I'm good. Watching James and Lynne. Hi, James. Hi, Lynne.
FREY: Hi, Oprah.
WINFREY: I wanted to say because everyone's been asking me to release a statement. I first wanted to hear what James had to say and I didn't want to have that colored by any personal conversation that I had.
As he said, he's had many conversations with my producers, who do fully support him and obviously we support the book because we recognize that there have been thousands and hundreds of thousands of people whose lives have been changed by this book.
Full Text: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ ... kl.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/11/lkl.01.html)
And what do various fornits think of this book? Here's one really passionate discussion.
http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?to ... rt=0#36646 (http://fornits.com/wwf/viewtopic.php?topic=4495&forum=24&start=0#36646)
Here's more!
Dave Chappelle Theory (http://www.chappelletheory.com/) a bit less fantastical, doesn't it?
The most fundamental purpose of government is defense, not empire.
--Joseph Sobran
_________________
Drug war POW Straight, Sarasota
`80 - `82
Post by: Antigen on January 13, 2006, 02:33:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 23:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"QuoteALRIGHT. I will consider the alternative. They come from the fingers of the Borg. Is that what you are looking for?
Please, go on. I am curious.
I would say that a group of connected, financed individuals are working hard to subvert this forum, possibly from a template of subversion tactics with proven results. I would think that they are more collusive and trained than anyone might want to acknowledge. This is nothing mysterious or new to anyone. But this environment is so rife with mean-spiritedness, confusion, puerility, malaise, and any number of other symptoms, that it is difficult to ignore the possibility that many people, even very technical people, have underestimated the seriousness, coordination, and ingenuity of the attack machine.
Well, it's not that I haven't considered it. I've actually thought about it quite some bit over the years. Not precisely this scenario. But, well, let's say that after the two week evaluation prank and then the attempted kidnappings and even an extradition from another state, the general idea of dirty tricks taken to insane lengths w/ these people doesn't seem like paranoia to me. It seems more like prescience.
And I've given a good deal of thought to how to address that. I think I found the linchpin (no, not the dude from Texas.... wasn't lookin fer him). It's all about control of communication. Ever read Why I Live at the PO?
Did you have any serious difficulty figuring out what to think or who to talk to? Me either. That shit only works well under controled conditions. But I must wonder what Oprah is gonna do to me now! :scared:
Faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
--Thomas Edison, American inventor
Post by: Antigen on January 13, 2006, 02:43:00 AM
So..... Fuck em! Let em throw fits. An accurate portrait of the troubled parent industry shouldn't leave them out, should it?
Or, of course, we'll make great pets. All you can do is try and make people think.
The wretchedness of religion is at once an expression and a protest against real wretchedness. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the feeling of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of unspiritual conditions. It is the opium of the people.
--Karl Marx, German economist and political philosopher
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 07:40:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-12 23:02:00, Anonymous wrote:
"QuoteALRIGHT. I will consider the alternative. They come from the fingers of the Borg. Is that what you are looking for?
Please, go on. I am curious.
I would say that a group of connected, financed individuals are working hard to subvert this forum, possibly from a template of subversion tactics with proven results. I would think that they are more collusive and trained than anyone might want to acknowledge. This is nothing mysterious or new to anyone. But this environment is so rife with mean-spiritedness, confusion, puerility, malaise, and any number of other symptoms, that it is difficult to ignore the possibility that many people, even very technical people, have underestimated the seriousness, coordination, and ingenuity of the attack machine.
"
Considering the direction from which the mean-spiritedness, confusion, peurility, malaise and so on are coming from, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on exactly which parties are doing the attacking and undermining. That is, is it those parties which you are positing wish to subvert this forum? Or is actually the parties who profess a desire to maintain things as is? Or a third alternative? Just curious.
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 08:18:00 AM
Post by: teachback on January 13, 2006, 11:28:00 AM
Post by: Antigen on January 13, 2006, 01:12:00 PM
...the primary reason to outlaw marijuana
is its effect on the degenerate races.
Harry Anslinger
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 02:50:00 PM
-Frankie
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 03:24:00 PM
Quote
Oh, one other thing. I have to reiterate what the anon said above. Not everybody here has all their marbles. And that's true of any forum. Just check out the headlines about the red necks brawlin over gals in AOL's "Romance, older men" chatroom. You don't really have to pay people to get them to act crazy. And these particular people, identifying so critically w/ the program as they do, take criticizm of the program very personally.
It would be interesting to develop a way of determining which attacks are random and which are not. Randomness would have to be delineated as a variable first, and then a percentage and a margin of error decided upon. But even before this, the methods of subversion would have to be clearly listed and defined. Even then, it would require care to distinguish between the random and the subversive attack.
A strong understanding of the dynamics of open communication is crucial. Depending upon the context and the terms of use prescribed, the methods of communication will vary from forum to forum. But the dynamics should remain constant and identifiable. To determine if a subversive attack is taking place, mark which symptoms are occurring outside of the adjusted outcome of the dynamics.
This formula assumes that a normal pattern of communication should look one way, and that a subverted pattern of communication should look another way. The dynamics of a normal pattern of communication should remain constant, while a subverted pattern should lead to an overall effect of disintegration from the source. Like the symptoms of a progressing virus, certain identifiers should mark the subverted pattern?s overall decline. In either case, an eventual breakdown of the pattern is guaranteed. But the subverted pattern?s rate of decay should be verifiably faster and more pronounced.
Post by: Anonymous on January 13, 2006, 03:26:00 PM
Post by: Antigen on January 13, 2006, 08:15:00 PM
And even this assumes that there's a foregone goal or desired outcome to having this discussion which can, in fact, be subverted. As far as I'm concerned, there isn't. My goal has been to invite comment on the Troubled Parent industry and see what happens. I guess and I expect that the overall view of ppl who go looking around here is going to be generally negative about the industry and, hopefully, they'll gain some insight and understanding into how it works. It really is just a cheap ass bit of slight of mind. If you know the trick, it doesn't work on you.
So, what's the point of putting so much time and thought into determining the motives of the antagonists? I mean, unless you can drill down far enough to document financial transactions or, maybe, plea bargains or something. That would be useful, but I'm not sure the likelihood of finding them warrants that level of exhaustive research.
But knock yourself out if you think it does.
You have rights atecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe.
John Adams
Post by: starry-eyed pirate on January 13, 2006, 08:25:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-13 12:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I'll get right on it. "
Hah!! Ha... ArrrgghHhh!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Post by: The Alterboy on January 13, 2006, 10:20:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-13 12:26:00, Anonymous wrote:
"I'll get right on it. "
My staff?? :em:
Post by: Antigen on January 14, 2006, 02:17:00 PM
Gots ta go somewhere now, but I was really looking forward to a response. I'll be back later today.
Question with boldness even the existance of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.
--Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat
Post by: Anonymous on January 22, 2006, 11:48:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-11 21:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
"
Post by: Anonymous on January 25, 2006, 01:41:00 AM
Quote
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?"
Quote
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative? "
Quote
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative? "
Post by: Anonymous on January 25, 2006, 01:47:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-24 22:41:00, Anonymous wrote:
"Quote"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?"Quote"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative? "Quote"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly."
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative? "
What's up with the quote thing ?? That was a good riddle, it took me a while to figure it out.
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2006, 10:32:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-01-11 21:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
"
There are known pedophiles who come to fornits for pedophile purposes.
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2006, 10:36:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2006, 10:38:00 AM
Quote
On 2006-02-23 07:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And YOU are in love with each & every one of them, motherfucker. You wanna tongue their assholes, admit it! :lol: :lol: "
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2006, 10:40:00 AM
Post by: Anonymous on February 23, 2006, 01:44:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-02-23 07:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And YOU are in love with each & every one of them, motherfucker. You wanna tongue their assholes, admit it! :lol: :lol: "
Another pedophile rears their ugly head. GROSS.
Post by: Anonymous on March 13, 2006, 12:56:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-01-11 21:11:00, Anonymous wrote:
"The best way to undermine a system of open and cooperative wordplay is to assert, in various and yet similar formulaic patterns, an ongoing replay of the obstacle. The obstacle is a bonding of words designed to accomplish the following: a weakening or complete breakdown of the host?s ability to ignore or deal constructively with insults, a reduction or elimination of the host?s rational faculties in favor of irrationality and acute anger, and a momentary or lingering loss of the host?s ability to articulate thoughts clearly.
The endgame for those who seek to subvert a group is threefold: a breakdown of trust, a collapse of clear communication, and the coveted result of group member against group member, which is the prize of the saboteur.
The recent surges in word attacks seem almost calculated. They are too virus-like in their one-sidedness, too self-aware to be progressive manifestations of so many people word-jostling each other and growing sickened by the monotony of it. So why assume that every word attack originates in the fingers of a survivor? Why not consider the alternative?
"
:wave:
Post by: teachback on March 13, 2006, 01:16:00 PM
Quote
On 2006-02-23 07:36:00, Anonymous wrote:
"And YOU are in love with each & every one of them, motherfucker. You wanna tongue their assholes, admit it! :lol: :lol: "
Sorry, this was me...forgot to login on purpose.