CDZ Inculpatory Evidence

[Josf]

"Josf is either trying to provide cognitive tangle as a covert infiltrator manipulating, or perhaps is Aspergers. There is some indication the latter is more likely. One thing is certain, he is not reasonably accountable."

Character Assassination is a form of censorship.

If anyone cares not to read someone's viewpoint then the polite thing to do is to ask for someone to please avoid responding any further in a Topic started by the OP. That is certainly well within the forum rules. Someone who then does not agree to honor the polite request to self-censor is someone refusing to self-censor.

Rules of the forum, as far as I know, do not include a demand to be polite, to honor a requests to self-censor, but I can certainly do so even if it is not in the rules to be polite enough to honor a request to self-censor.

Why do people choose to resort to libel as a means of character assassination?

Are there other example of inculpatory evidence proving the fact that someone on this forum is actively engaged in libelous character assassination despite the fact that such behavior is clearly against the rules?

 

[Ringel05]

Honestly? You need to start sleeping on a bed of nails, get that skin toughened up.
Heck I presume that is a quote by someone allegedly besmirching your character at the very beginning of your OP. It's a messageboard, how do we know the person making the accusation isn't correct?
Oh and no, it's not against the forum rules especially in the manner it was presented.

 

[Josf]

I've read your posts Ringe105 and I appreciate your form of humor. It is refreshing, thanks.

If you wish to give credit to the idea that I am in some way a dependent due to my mental incapacity, as does the character assassin, then why not say so?

Why hide your addition to the effort to injure someone with words?

Perhaps there is no injury due to the fact that the target is fully capable of self defense? Rules are meant to protect those who are ill prepared for self defense. Understanding the intent of rules may be valuable to some people; other's not so much.

Please continue with the humor and whatever you intend to do with your words. If you target someone innocent, someone I know, then I will not see humor in it.

 

[Liffy]

"Josf is either trying to provide cognitive tangle as a covert infiltrator manipulating, or perhaps is Aspergers. There is some indication the latter is more likely. One thing is certain, he is not reasonably accountable."

Character Assassination is a form of censorship.

If anyone cares not to read someone's viewpoint then the polite thing to do is to ask for someone to please avoid responding any further in a Topic started by the OP. That is certainly well within the forum rules. Someone who then does not agree to honor the polite request to self-censor is someone refusing to self-censor.

Rules of the forum, as far as I know, do not include a demand to be polite, to honor a requests to self-censor, but I can certainly do so even if it is not in the rules to be polite enough to honor a request to self-censor.

Why do people choose to resort to libel as a means of character assassination?

Are there other example of inculpatory evidence proving the fact that someone on this forum is actively engaged in libelous character assassination despite the fact that such behavior is clearly against the rules?

It happens and I don't give a fuck. Only take these faggits as seriously as they take you.

 

[Josf]

Not many people are willing or able to speak about the elephant and the donkey in the room whereby this pair are crapping on everyone. I think one term for this phenomenon is cognitive dissonance. Other terms describing this phenomenon are: blind obedience to falsehood without question.

The forum operator may be one of the innocent victims in any case where the elephant and the donkey show up and start crapping on everyone. I don't know, but finding out could be a process of discovery: not a foreign concept by the way.

 

[Liffy]

Not many people are willing or able to speak about the elephant and the donkey in the room whereby this pair are crapping on everyone. I think one term for this phenomenon is cognitive dissonance. Other terms describing this phenomenon are: blind obedience to falsehood without question.

The forum operator may be one of the innocent victims in any case where the elephant and the donkey show up and start crapping on everyone. I don't know, but finding out could be a process of discovery: not a foreign concept by the way.

What is your point exactly no need to try and sound smart

 

[Josf]

Perhaps humor is on order?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-HHOuoQvmSsI/VCBF-HDyH0I/AAAAAAAAXGo/L8YC_N7kdts/s1600/tmp.jpg

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/ConradDonkey.jpg

The point can be known if one is willing to know it; if not then that too can be known.

Survival of a Fitting Quotation

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.”

 

[Josf]

"Rejecting crazy isn't narrow minded."

There is a principle which is a bar against all information...

If someone invests into character assassination the goal is knowable. The assassin wishes to assassinate. In places were the criminals who take over governments are reaching the point at which their power is absolute it can easily become a death sentence to those accused of insanity, or heresy, or terrorism.

Extraordinary rendition

Narrow minds are what they are for obvious reasons, or for reasons less obvious.

 

[Josf]

...the insane statement of the day."

Contorted libel is crafty or lazy, I'm not sure which; the connection is made between one individual and another individual whereby "insanity" is suggested as an accusation made by one individual as that one individual connects to the other individual.

If the individuals are face to face, as accuser and accused, then the accuser can be known as the accuser by the one accused without anonymity preventing a reasoned response to false accusations made by someone perpetrating libel.

Knowing friend from foe is a worthy goal for those who understand such value in such investments.

A false charge of insanity is often employed for the benefit of the false accuser as the false accuser is interested in censoring specific information from any source.

When the criminals fully take over the false charge of insanity is cause for tortured "confessions" and burning at the stake.

The good old days for some.

 

[richstacy]

Wow LIFFY, and this is the "CLEAN debate zone?" And Josf, why do you feel compelled to try to impress us with your meandering version of "smart?"

 

[TemplarKormac]

If anyone cares not to read someone's viewpoint then the polite thing to do is to ask for someone to please avoid responding any further in a Topic started by the OP.

I'm going out on a limb here and saying you don't know how to use the ignore list yet.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why do people choose to resort to libel as a means of character assassination?

It hides a lack of a serious argument. You need to be prepared for that here. Shrug it off and keep making your point. Anyone who insults you during an honest debate should immediately tell you who the victor is.

 

[Josf]

Two things become obvious to me when discussion (or debate) is degraded by resort to character assassination.

1. What might have been useful information offered from one perspective, or the other perspectives, are not offered as one perspective chooses censorship by way of character assassination.

2. The first lost exchange of useful information prevents any further potentially useful exchanges of information due to the choice to employ character assassination as a method by which one individual censors information exchanges.

This Topic concerns the public publishing of inculpatory evidence useful in accounting for the character assassins among us.

Another topic created for the purpose of describing the different competitive angles of view on the meaning and use of debate as a potentially useful process used cooperatively to develop a higher quality and lower cost viewpoint of life instead of a contest to see which one can destroy which other one is possible and in my opinion useful.

 

[Josf]

"Maybe if you post in Russian your pseudo-intellectual pretensions would not be so obvious."

In order to further the shared goal of comparing viewpoints in debate those sharing that goal agree to avoid taking steps backwards into flame wars.

In order to further the goal of stepping backwards into flame wars, those sharing that goal resort to personal attacks as their chosen form of "debate."

 

[Josf]

"Josf-----don't give up your day job"

False version of advice? Presumption of baseless knowledge and or authority? The common denominator resorted to by those who depend upon falsehood?

 

[Josf]

" Josph, I ask you to accept my response to this particular post of yours. I am a retired serviceman who swore an oath to this nation, The United States of America. In this final post I feel it my responsibility to state my position clearly. I cannot, due to the oath I have taken and honor, continue this dialog with you, Josph. Even a vague hint of seditious thought is to me repulsive. That you have called me the enemy, quote, "We the criminals, anyone belonging in that group..." 1st para. I Josph, am not your enemy. You are your own enemy. Further, you freely admit, to me, that you wished to join "an effective milita to defend against your nation". Again, if you in fact do need defense against my nation, you have brought that upon yourself, of and by your own hand. For these two reasons, (a) sedition, (b) you have declared me personally, some one who could not identify you in a crowd of one, your enemy, (c) feel the need to be a member of an "effective milita", leave me no choice but to sever this dialog. I ask you to tread carefully, be wise, and tone down your voice. Those who you declare you as an enemy will in fact become such, should you not write with reserve. As an American Soldier, Retired, I cannot be a part of this. Please refrain from corresponding with me, as of this time. 07/23/2015 19:15 hrs."

As the former federation turns into a working despotism, something that takes a long time when the people are less that willing to accept such evil, there are potential accusations that can be given to very powerfully evil people, and those accusations turn into what is known alternatively as witch hunts, kangaroo trials, and crimes perpetrated upon the accused by evil people with malice aforethought, because the pay is good.

So the above is an example of how such accusations may arise. This individual claims some very serious claims against me personally. Apparently, in this persons world, the idea that burning people, including pregnant women, babies, toddler, children, teenagers, productive adults, and old people, in a church, burning them alive, after weeks of systematic torture, is NOT cause for action against such evil.

If that is so, in that evil world, then that is so.

If acting against such evil is somehow twisted into becoming "seditious thought," then in that world, according to those people, that is so.

Let this be my defense against such baseless accusations.

The Declaration of Independence is clearly a work of men, but it is also clearly an inspiration from natural law, and an inspiration from spiritual teaching in such forms as Matthew 7:12.

It is the duty of free people to act against such evil as burning innocent people alive in a church after systematically torturing them for weeks. That is not sedition, that is not immoral, that is the duty of free people, clearly explained in the Declaration of Independence.

I honored my statement to stop posting in a topic if asked to do so. The above quote constitutes a Parthian Arrow. It is a military tactic. The one retreating fires while retreating. It is not honorable, it is reprehensible.