Give the fiddle player his due by PIRATENEWS

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Give the fiddle player his due

POSTED BY: PIRATENEWS
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 9, 2013 18:09
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4854
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 4:53 AM

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

A man sat at a metro station in Washington DC and started to play the violin; it was a cold January morning. He played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time, since it was rush hour, it was calculated that 1,100 people went through the station, most of them on their way to work.

Three minutes went by, and a middle aged man noticed there was musician playing. He slowed his pace, and stopped for a few seconds, and then hurried up to meet his schedule.

A minute later, the violinist received his first dollar tip: a woman threw the money in the till and without stopping, and continued to walk.

A few minutes later, someone leaned against the wall to listen to him, but the man looked at his watch and started to walk again. Clearly he was late for work.

The one who paid the most attention was a 3 year old boy. His mother tagged him along, hurried, but the kid stopped to look at the violinist. Finally, the mother pushed hard, and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. All the parents, without exception, forced them to move on.

In the 45 minutes the musician played, only 6 people stopped and stayed for a while. About 20 gave him money, but continued to walk their normal pace. He collected $32. When he finished playing and silence took over, no one noticed it. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.

No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the most talented musicians in the world. He had just played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, on a violin worth $3.5 million dollars.

Two days before his playing in the subway, Joshua Bell sold out at a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.

This is a real story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste, and priorities of people. The outlines were: in a commonplace environment at an inappropriate hour: Do we perceive beauty? Do we stop to appreciate it? Do we recognize the talent in an unexpected context?

One of the possible conclusions from this experience could be:

If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world playing the best music ever written, how many other things are we missing?

Origins

Many a marketing survey has been conducted to gauge how presentation affects consumer perceptions of quality, and quite a few such surveys have found that people will frequently designate one of two identical items as being distinctly better than the other simply because it is packaged or presented more attractively. Might this same concept apply to fields outside of consumer products, such as the arts? Would, for example, people distinguish between a world-class instrumental virtuoso and an ordinary street musician if the only difference between them were the setting? These were questions tackled by Washington Post writer Gene Weingarten in 2007 when he enlisted renowned violinist Joshua Bell, a winner of the Avery Fisher Prize for outstanding achievement in classical music who regularly undertakes over 200 international engagements a year, to spend part of a morning playing incognito at the entrance to a Washington Metro station during a morning rush hour. Weingarten set up the event "as an experiment in context, perception and priorities — as well as an unblinking assessment of public taste: In a banal setting at an inconvenient time, would beauty transcend?"

So, on 12 January 2007, about a thousand morning commuters passing through the L'Enfant Plaza Station of the subway line in Washington, D.C. were, without publicity, treated to a free mini-concert performed by violin virtuoso Joshua Bell, who played for approximately 45 minutes, performing six classical pieces (two of which were by Bach) during that span on his handcrafted 1713 Stradivarius violin (for which Bell reportedly paid $3.5 million). As Weingarten described the crux of the experiment:

Each passerby had a quick choice to make, one familiar to commuters in any urban area where the occasional street performer is part of the cityscape: Do you stop and listen? Do you hurry past with a blend of guilt and irritation, aware of your cupidity but annoyed by the unbidden demand on your time and your wallet? Do you throw in a buck, just to be polite? Does your decision change if he's really bad? What if he's really good? Do you have time for beauty? Shouldn't you? What's the moral mathematics of the moment?

Three days earlier, Bell had played to a full house at Boston's Symphony Hall, where fairly good seats went for $100. But on this day he collected just $32.17 for his efforts, contributed by a mere 27 of 1,097 passing travelers. Only seven people stopped to listen, and just one of them recognized the performer.

The Washington Post won a Pulitzer Prize in the feature writing category for Gene Weingarten's April 2007 story about this experiment, based in part on the article's originality. Weingarten was therefore quite surprised at finding out in mid-2008 that his concept wasn't quite so unique: the very same experiment had been tried (with strikingly similar results) by another journalist 77 years earlier:

In a stunt ginned up by a newspaper named the Post — the Chicago Evening Post — violin virtuoso Jacques Gordon, a onetime child prodigy, performed for spare change on his priceless Stradivarius, incognito, for three-quarters of an hour outside a subway station. Most people hurried past, unheeding. The violinist made a few measly bucks and change. It was a story about artistic context, priorities and the soul-numbing gallop of modernity.

I obtained a copy of the original [May 1930] article from the long-defunct Evening Post. The main story, bylined Milton Fairman, was on Page One, under the headline "Famous Fiddler in Disguise Gets $5.61 in Curb Concerts." The story began: "A tattered beggar in an ancient frock coat, its color rusted by the years, gave a curbstone concert yesterday noon on windswept Michigan Avenue. Hundreds passed him by without a glance, and the golden notes that rose from his fiddle were swept by the breeze into unlistening ears ..."

We learn from this story that two of the handful of songs played by Jacques Gordon were Massenet's "Meditation" from "Thais" and Schubert's "Ave Maria." Two of the handful of songs played by Joshua Bell were Massenet's "Meditation" from "Thais" and Schubert's "Ave Maria." Of the hundreds of people who walked by Gordon, only one recognized him for who he was. Of the hundreds of people who walked by Bell, only one recognized him for who he was.

I telephoned Bell — he, too, had not heard about this other street corner stunt. But, though Jacques Gordon died two decades before Bell was born, Bell knew of him. The two men had shared something intimate. From 1991 through 2001, Bell played the same Strad that Gordon had once owned, the same one Gordon had played on the Chicago streets that day in 1930. For 11 years, Bell's fingers held the same ancient wood.

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bell.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007
040401721.html

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 5:37 AM

ARLO

-.-. ..- -- / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- . / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - .- . / . .-. .- - --..-- / - ..- -- / ... --- .-.. .. / .--. .-. --- ... -.-. .-. .. .--. - / -.-. .- - .- .--. ..- .-.. - .- ... / .... .- -... . ..- -. -

Quote:
Originally posted by PIRATENEWS:

http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/bell.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/04/AR2007
040401721.html

So ... the suppressed lucid personality within you that seldom makes its presence known here has respect and admiration for Jewish violinists? Whodathunkit? ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 7:20 AM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I would not describe PN as nonlucid, this coming from someone who knows a lot about this. He choses to post what he posts. Whether he believes it all is another issue entire, but it doesn't really denote nonlucidity.

That being said this is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it PN, I think it says a lot about our society, and its interesting that the same experiment was tried back in the day and it had similar results. People don't really respect each other in life.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 8:13 AM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I would not describe PN as nonlucid, this coming from someone who knows a lot about this. He choses to post what he posts. Whether he believes it all is another issue entire, but it doesn't really denote nonlucidity.

That being said this is a very interesting article, thanks for posting it PN, I think it says a lot about our society, and its interesting that the same experiment was tried back in the day and it had similar results. People don't really respect each other in life.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

As interesting and accurate as this particular story is and as qualified as you present yourself in knowledge of lucidity (or of non), I beg to differ.

Definition of LUCIDITY

1: clearness of thought or style
2: a presumed capacity to perceive the truth directly and instantaneously

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucidity

Lu·cid·i·ty [loo-sid-i-tee]

noun

1.the quality of being easily understood, completely intelligible, or comprehensible: (example) She makes her argument with pointed logic and exemplary lucidity.

2.the ability to see things clearly; rationality; sanity: (example) In a rare moment of lucidity, the senator sided with his political enemies for the good of the country.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lucidity

To illustrate one of PN's less lucid moments one must merely examine another (of many such) threads: http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?tid=53923

It hardly takes expertise to see a stark contrast here.

Having said such, however, I would like to think that PN has turned a corner (or resumed medication, gotten past a recent trauma - whatever the situation) and has embraced both reality and rationality, making up less bizarre (and apparently desired) negative attention-seeking threads in order to post more like the above. Exchanging incite-fulness for insight-fulness is a rather good trade-off.

More on Mr. Bell's performance (2007 - email circulated since 2008):

http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/music/a/violinist_metro.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:05 AM

OLDENGLANDDRY

Your obviously new around here.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:44 AM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Your obviously new around here.

Not sure which one of us you're referring to but, being the most recent poster prior to your quote-less contribution, I'll presume it was aimed at me.

Technically, no, I'm not 'new' ... but after signing onto this forum (back when) I discovered the official OB (recently demised) which was my FF home for many years. I've rather recently adopted these digs as my new 'Coat lifeboat.' I am, however, always a touch optimistic when it comes to the potential improvement/recovery/revelation of sanity behind the mask(s) of others (whether or not history reflects a consistent pattern otherwise, making the event highly unlikely). On the other hand (my still having 2 available) pragmatism and a poking stick oft go hand in hand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:05 AM

BYTEMITE

PN really goes back and forth, and I have reason to believe he knows exactly what he's posting when he posts Sandyhook blood sacrifice no shooting conspiracy theory stories. So I'm not sure lucid or non-lucid is really a good description here.

It was an interesting experiment and article.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:09 AM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
... and I have reason to believe he knows exactly what he's posting when he posts Sandyhook blood sacrifice no shooting conspiracy theory stories.

What would that reason be? Please share.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:12 AM

BYTEMITE

Well, like I said before, he once told us he gets paid for this. And he would have other reasons to play up the sensationalized angle as well, not the least of which is it's the most likely to appeal to his target reader base on the fringe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 10:34 AM

ARLO

Neither of which, if true (though unlikely), would preclude his exhibiting neurotic behavior. Honestly, if he's made claims of deriving earnings of any substance or cultivating a greater following by spending so much of his 'valuable' time on this (and possibly other) forums, such is likely evident of fantasy borne of narcissistic behavior which typically goes hand-in-hand with paranoid-schizophrenia and starvation for attention at any cost. Bear in mind how fast and loose he plays it with 'factual' claims. 'Millions die every day.' He's as factually grounded as half the students in my 13 year old step-son's middle school ... only more fixated on the bizarre (which, well, says a lot).

He would make an interesting and challenging case study, should anyone give a damn. =0)

sincerely, 1933

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 11:17 AM

BYTEMITE

There is a difference between neurosis and lucidity.

*I'M* neurotic. And generally too aware, so much so that every facet of this reality has a very sharp edge.

I really think PN knows what he's doing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:25 PM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
There is a difference between neurosis and lucidity.

*I'M* neurotic. And generally too aware, so much so that every facet of this reality has a very sharp edge.

I really think PN knows what he's doing.

Of course there is. However, one of the definitions of lucidity is 'Mentally sound; sane or rational.' http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lucidity - a definition that doesn't describe much of what PN offers here (for whatever reason).

I *added* that PN also appears to have very specific neurotic characteristics. There is no case for mutual exclusiveness. Such an inclusion is actually a perceptive reason supporting specific behavior. 'Awareness' or 'intent' doesn't preclude lack of lucidity, either.

sincerely, 1933

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:35 PM

BYTEMITE

Lucidity is a particular KIND of mental soundness. It denotes a person being present and aware, and as such able to participate. It's why being able to direct or participate in a dream is called "lucid dreaming."

PN, even when his posts are sensationalized, is participating and aware. He is coherent, attempting to make a point, though one that seems to you to have logical failings.

If simple rationality were the standard for lucidity, a number of people on this board would be non-lucid most of the time. We would also accuse each other of being non-lucid whensoever we disagreed with each other.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 12:58 PM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Lucidity is a particular KIND of mental soundness. It denotes a person being present and aware, and as such able to participate. It's why being able to direct or participate in a dream is called "lucid dreaming."

I would hesitate to use 'lucid dreaming' as an example proving 'mental soundness.' It would go far, however, to explain where PN lives when it comes to much of what he shares here as 'insight' (incite).

http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/can-you-confuse-lucid-dreams-wi
th-reality.html

Lucidity, when it comes to communication, is more accurately a conveyance and not a state, at all (though, as such, it would convey sound rationale, indicating a 'state of lucidity'). Though you and I freely acknowledge differing opinion, it's mine that PN fails to convey sound rationale when he's off on a conspiracy bender.

sincerely, 1933

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:16 PM

BYTEMITE

Sound rationale is not the only determination of lucid or non-lucid states, and in fact less important than other determining factors. Hence my point about how it would be incorrect to call someone non-lucid when they're just being irrational.

I lucid dream, for the record. Are we going to question my lucidity?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:37 PM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Sound rationale is not the only determination of lucid or non-lucid states (behavior, conveyance - Arlo), and in fact less important than other determining factors. Hence my point about how it would be incorrect to call someone non-lucid when they're just being irrational.

By accurate definition (as many have been provided throughout the course of our interaction in this thread), when it comes to conscious conveyance of thought it is entirely correct. Being 'just irrational' IS being non-lucid.

lucid

lu·cid [loo-sid]

adjective

1. easily understood; completely intelligible or comprehensible: a lucid explanation.
2. characterized by clear perception or understanding; rational or sane: a lucid moment in his madness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lucid

Definition of LUCID

2: having full use of one's faculties : sane
3: clear to the understanding : intelligible

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lucid

lu·cid (lsd)

adj.

1. Easily understood; intelligible.
2. Mentally sound; sane or rational.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lucid

Your preference of 'intelligible' does not counter my use of the definition 'rational.'

Your dreams were never part of my pointing out PN's spotty lucidity. If you've decided to take personal affront, that's entirely on you.

So, now that we've argued semantics to death, what now? =0)

sincerely, 1933

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 1:54 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
Being 'just irrational' IS being non-lucid.

Not... really.

You're focusing on only one part of the definition, when that part of the definition is not even the major determination in whether someone is lucid or not.

If you mean rational then use rational. When you say lucid what we all think you mean is "clearheaded" "sober" "all there" or "together" all of which indicate a lack of hazy/muddled thinking or intoxication.

Someone who is emotionally hysterical could be acting or speaking irrationally and yet be completely lucid. A good example of this is River Tam - she only sometimes ever speaks clearly, but some of her more cryptic statements have a deliberate and coherent meaning in context. She is lucid when she makes coherent statements and is aware of what is going on around her, and non-lucid when she's "not all there."

Perhaps another way you meant this was "lucida intervalla" or "compos mentis", a period of temporary composure in the midst of more excitable/insane behaviour. But lucidity is not necessarily the same as rationality.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:59 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

This joke marketing experiment proves:

1. Rich people are stupid to pay million$ for what they can get for free.

2. Middle class people are usually braindead.

3. Poor panhandlers can earn $100/hour begging for money on streetcorners.

4. Muggers can get rich robbing beggers.

5. Most posters on FFF are retarded.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 3:47 PM

ARLO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
Being 'just irrational' IS being non-lucid.

Not... really.

You're focusing on only one part of the definition, when that part of the definition is not even the major determination in whether someone is lucid or not.

I'm focused on an accurate definition. There is no 'one part.' A valid definition *is* providing a rational argument/statement/premise. The numbers indicate more than one definition may be applied to the word used. Each one being valid. Your insistence that my use of the word is incorrect is not substantiated by the dictionary definition.

Quote:
Someone who is emotionally hysterical could be acting or speaking irrationally and yet be completely lucid.

No. By definition and by practice that is a false statement.

Now, we've thoroughly debated whether the use of 'lucid' applies. If you want to substitute 'rational', feel free. Other than that, what issue do you have?

sincerely, 1933

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 4:45 PM

BYTEMITE

Even definitions from established sources can be poorly worded, and those definitions are actually really unclear and don't get across what constitutes lucidity one way or another. Even the example sentences are vague and don't really impart anything meaningful.

I recommend going to the theasaurus and the etymology when there's question about the nuances of a word. If you were to do so for lucidity, you would see that the emphasis is on clearheadedness, intelligibility, and coherence, with rationality not as well correlated.

Quote:
No. By definition and by practice that is a false statement.

By practice it's a true statement. We are arguing about the definition now - that is what is in dispute.

This oxford dictionary entry includes only the clearheaded definition, no mention of rationality whatsoever.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/lucid

Looking closely at your linked definitions (EDIT: I just noticed you have more than one post with definitions, I mean the second post), one of those definitions appears to have almost directly copied from the other, it is likely those two definitions come from the same source.

Your middle definition doesn't mention rationality.

In this APA article, lucidity is described as "clear one day, foggy the next, calm one moment and exploding with rage in another."

http://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/11/lucidity.aspx

In this abstract, lucidity is defined as mental clarity and memory clarity, not rationality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20010032

Quite simply, sometimes definitions of a specific medical term can be inaccurate in some dictionaries. The editors of a dictionary are not all skilled or all-versed in every professional field, and they may sometimes fumble on the subtleties of a term. Increased rationality can be associated with a return to lucidity, but not always, it depends on the person, their condition, and their background.

Using lucidity as a synonym for rationality is not advised, and "lucidity" as you are using it doesn't describe PN's post here. There has been no real change in PN's coherence or his posting style, nor his tendency to not really post in response to other boardmembers. His post is less sensationalized, yes, it's a more everyday topic, yes, and it is different from PN's more extreme and sometimes offensive opinions and perspectives. But merely being a conspiracy theorist and having outlandish or offensive opinions does not indicate schizophrenia and lucid or non-lucid periods. Nor does disagreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:55 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Here's the problem I think. Arlo is referring to lucid communication, as in communication that is clear and easy to make sense of. I was thinking of lucid states and nonlucid states, which are different than lucid communication, though one's state can effect one's ability to communicate of course.

Arlo, you might enjoy reading my Tayona stories, they are about a touched woman who has more lucid times and very non lucid times, they're slice of life stories about her and her friends, family and caregivers and how they're all trying to figure out the world and live happily and fully in ways that work for all of them. ... Or maybe you wouldn't.

that being said I've definitely spent some time with some folk who are in quite nonlucid states some of the time, one in particular I've never really seen her in anything lucid enough to be a lucid state of any variation. I miss her, she doesn't come to the day center where i help on Mon. any more. :(

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:58 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Nice try, Arlo. But just as you'll never get sense out of PN, you'll never convince Byte he's nuttier than a fruitcake. She is his main fan here, and will argue 'till the cows come home that he has something of value to relate.

On the other hand, it was amusing to see you try, and I above anyone here agree with you as to PN's state of "mind" (if you can call it that). He is as vile in both word and deed (visuals) as Con ever conceived of being, in my opinion. From what I remember, Con was just deluded...PN is truly SICK and what he puts up is sickENING.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 12:55 PM

BYTEMITE

I actually agree sometimes PN is out there. And I acknowledge he has gulf war syndrome and that can sometimes impact his perspective.

But I dispute the use of lucidity and the equivalence to rationality. It's not quite the same thing. And while lucidity sometimes leads to/is conducive to rationality, rationality doesn't always lead to and is not always conducive to lucidity.

Thank goodness for that. Some of our best researchers are completely bonkers. It's the odd minds sometimes that spot the overlooked data or the surprising connections.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:00 PM

BYTEMITE

It is also true that I am inclined to defend PN, sometimes despite the content of his post. I guess it just seems to me like PN needs someone to believe in him now and then.

I admit I have a bad habit of defending people who I see as underdogs. Sometimes even when very few other people seem to like them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:29 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Just as an aside and leaving out the "very few other people seem to like them",

Quote:
habit of defending people who I see as underdogs

is I was referring to in saying you were backing Anthony in the gun discussion (because VERY few people here don't like Anthony!). Does it make more sense to you now? Just about everyone was "on the other side", so I saw you as coming in to champion him, which I've seen you do with others. It's NOTHING WRONG, I just thought this might help you understand the misunderstanding we had in that thread better.

Tit for tat got us where we are today. If we want to be grownups, we need to resist the ugliness. If we each did, this would be a better reflection on Firefly and a more welcome place. I will try.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:35 PM

BYTEMITE

Nah, I meant like with Wulf, and Six. Sometimes I just feel bad for those guys, even when they don't treat other people very nicely.

Anthony I felt like had plenty of support, I mean both chris and Frem were there. I just didn't like what people were saying to Anthony.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 1:47 PM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist

by H. Michael Sweeney
www.MKZine.com
Spring/Summer 2003

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal', 'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'

www.whale.to/m/disin.html
www.911review.org/Wiki/RulesOfDisinformation.shtml
www.whale.to/b/sweeney.html

Examples & response:
www.proparanoid.net/truth.htm

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
-William Casey, CIA Director (first staff meeting with Reagan/Bush in 1981)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, January 9, 2013 6:09 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

Good points PN.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE