Page 1 of 1


PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:08 am
by rexsinga

Re: My letter to a cop

PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 10:35 am
by huntingross
Hi rexsinga

I've been following your notices on here as they have been posted, all excellent.

There is another post up today that brands you sovereign americans as home grown terrorists just waiting to entrap a cop or two and shoot them dead.

Looks like the heat is on.

Re: My letter to a cop

PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:59 pm
by crashJPmorganBuySilver
UPDATE on the Original Poster, folks...

Eric Shute, 27, of Pennsville, was arrested March 23 at 2:51 p.m. after police discovered that he was allegedly unlicensed, police said. Shute was at police headquarters for a separate matter when police made the discovery and subsequently revoked his registration, according to police. Police stopped Shute in the parking lot as he was driving away and during the stop, Shute allegedly assaulted the officers on the scene and was placed under arrest, police said. Shute was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer and resisting arrest. He was committed to the Salem County Correctional Facility in default of $25,000 full cash bail.

Think I'm kidding?

Personal Note: To date, the Pennsville Police Dept has not given Mr. Shute any money nor recognized his eloquent letter as a valid treatese. He is in jail.

Re: My letter to a cop

PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:09 pm
by crashJPmorganBuySilver
Erick did not steal anything, read the wrong article. He was at the police station dealing with something else..., turned out to have none of his papers in order (no valid license, no insurance, no registration), proceeded to drive away even after a cop on foot tried to stop him...almost hitting the cop with his car in the process. The cop got on his radio and 5 minutes later he was kissing asphalt with a blue knee on his back and his hands in cuffs.

Re: ...

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 12:08 am
by rexsinga
Who are you and what did I do to you?

Re: ...

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 12:11 am
by rexsinga
by the way, all of that other information is incorrect crashjpmorgan, I don't know who you are, or who you talked to, but it sounds to me like you are a cop attempting to slander me with lies.

Re: ...

PostPosted: Fri May 27, 2011 7:13 am
by pedawson

From Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney. These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to television shows, to comments on a blog.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such “arguable rumors”. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

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.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae” to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial 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.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues — so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road” and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made — but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just isn’t so.” Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address the issue.

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”.

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Re: ...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:20 pm
by crashJPmorganBuySilver
rexsinga wrote:by the way, all of that other information is incorrect crashjpmorgan, I don't know who you are, or who you talked to, but it sounds to me like you are a cop attempting to slander me with lies.

Slander? ill will? You wish. We don't even talk about you. Well one guy called you Captain America and got a round of half hearted snickering when you first rolled in and that was the end of it, to put it lightly we fry much bigger fish on an hourly basis. A blurb in the local rag was all the street cred you could milk out of your stunt so it looks like you'll have to be satisfied with that.

The only reason I'm even posting again (how many weeks after the fact?) was because I was sorting through my browse history and wondered what I was doing here.

For all your flag hanging and fist-pumping you do you'd think you could've gotten some altitude in your "cause" or whatever it is you think you believe in by now, I can only chalk up the failure to just textbook lack of charisma. You apparently don't inspire confidence. The wife asked if you were dangerous, I said , only to himself.

So in conclusion how about you take that prehensile brain of yours, go to law school and learn how our government really does work. You may sleep better at night when you realize how much conspiracy theories defy logic and common sense.

PS didn't mean to put out incorrect information about how you ended up in the Stir over traffic tickets, for the benefit for the 3 other people who'll even see this post in the next 20 years please feel free to set the record straight .

Re: ...

PostPosted: Mon Jun 27, 2011 7:39 pm
by kevin
I think that's enough thanks