by the way… according to the definition of the word conclusion, you have reached no such thing!!!!

all you have is a blind assertion made in a room after you have refused any conclusions as acceptable to you!

Conclusion
the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.

nope… the other person walked out given that your not wiling to change your position on any information EXCEPT themloading you into a truck. but by then the argyument woudl be moot… kind of like argying AFTER the lottery.

a reasoned deduction or inference.

you DEFINITELY did not do that… in fact all you did was put up a bunch of goals that you claim were not met and so your deducting from that.

but none of your points can make a valid argumetn from where you are that your deduction is right. in fact it was completely eroneous and only had value in being snarky and attempting to gain an emote point on the same score card as trolls.

my or anyones refusal to meet your criteria is not a sign we are wrong, it may be a sign that you moved the goal posts to outside the park.

your the one that changes your postion and shifts onus.

you will say some large statment that X cant do Y beacuse of Z… then i or someone will show that X CAN do y evenwithout Z… and you then say it was irrelevent… you are the one doing the shifting.

you are always heding to reasonableness… i can prove it… you will make comments that lead to your position.

It does seem to me that you are softening your earlier claims.

and where is your evidence referrig back to unspecified posts?

oh… i see… what rules you apply are not hte same as to the others.

so neo has to go back and prove her point abotu her own words, but you can do what you just spoke against in the same post and not do so.

neoneocon.com/2009/10/30/finally-obama-gets-a-foreign-policy-success-unfortunately-its-in-honduras-not-iran/#comment-132046

It does seem to me that you are softening your earlier claims.

SEEM… what an exact term… your just baiting her. and where is your proof? where is your reference… follow the link and read the lower paragraph…

Frankly, though, given all this onus-shifting and hedging and handwaving and referring back to unspecified posts

not only did you refer back to unspecified posts, but you averaged them by your personal feelings and experience!!!! then you argued that your SEEM is more valid than NEOs actual writing.

wake up as to whom is doing what.

we have tried quopting other threads.
but then you say they are too long.

i am glad you wont read this.
that way others will see what an ass you are, and you wont know why.

That’s my conclusion.

frustrating your opoenent till they give up is how a 2 year old wins an argument.

refusing to give in when you ahve lost is a technique in the book i linked to. it makes everyone dance to your tune trying to change what you have decided not to change out of hand.

that is, you have no argument to support otherwise. the people here have given you more than several volumes of books to show why so. while you have done nothing but say, nope, that isnt it, not that one either, etc.

you REFUSE to take ANY unreasonable position.

your not that smart, you just learned a game where you can look and SEEM superior by refusing to give in and let others come to you to try.

it in no way shape or form conveys any validity any more than argying with a rock and getting no where means the rock won

this is how lesser intelligence can pretend to be a higher intelligence by ‘conducting’, rather than actyually participating at the same set of rules AND conceding points.

the rock never wins, no matter what…
it just sits there feeling good pretending it won after everyone else has left them alone in the room.

the training of the reasonable has been going on for a while…

heck, they dont even call them personel departments any more… they are now human resources… as if we were type writers and interchangeable marxist parts.

so submerged in it, the smartest of the programed cant tell they have been programmed to be comfortable with these mental things.

“Being ‘antisocial’ has become the cardinal sin in our society. We have to again go back to characteristics of ours which made us, as individuals, say that what is right is right, and whether or not it is antisocial, makes no difference. The young man who broadcast for the Red Chinese was simply ‘getting along’ as he had been taught to do by our educators.”

“The most deadly misconception of all, that requires a softening up in our thinking before we can make it, is the idea that there are different kinds of communism, and that besides international communism there is something called national communism, which fundamentally differs. There is nothing of the sort. We are again interpreting, on the basis of wishful thinking, what the Communists themselves are plainly saying. We base this national communism conception on Titoism. Tito at no time disowned or expressed doubt in any of the fundamental tenets of communism, and he is today expending all the time he can in trying to tell the world that he believes in communism, intends Communist objectives to win out in the long run all over the world. Communism in this, too, has been able, as always, to get the help it needs from the non-Communist and principally the anti-Communist world.

you cant convince the ignorant
because they dont have the requisite information to actually make the choice
and they will not admit that tehy dont…
instead they will make the critical information seen unecessary, so that they preserve self esteem at the cost of everyone else.

The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking : How to : Win an Argument, Defend a Case, Recognize a Fallacy, See Through a Deception

The Art of Deception: Controlling the Human Element of Security

The Art of Deception keven mitnick.

All, or nearly all, of the examples are fictional, but quite plausible. Many are frightening or at least unsettling because they expose the ease with which a skilled social engineer can subvert many rules most people take for granted.

And now you can read some translated ones on Maskirovka

Once you get the basics down… and then move to the papers of those who want to use such power and use it to get more. Then you realize “communism” is not “dead.” It is only underground. There were no purges. Those who ran the KGB still run the SVR and a dozen other services in the former Soviet Union. They learned that to control things overtly was not the way, and so like others in the past have slipped into the shadows where there is no one to blame.

There is Article X: the sources of soviet conduct by George Kennan

The books below come from a list from the austrailian airforce
Mesmerized by the Bear: The Soviet Strategy of Deception, edited by Raymond S. Sleeper. New York, Dodd, Mead & Co, 1987. 384 p.
Book call no.: 355.033547 M579
The New Image-Makers: Soviet Propaganda & Disinformation Today. Washington, Pergamon-Brassey’s International Defense Publishers, 1988. 262 p.
Book call no.: 327.17 N532
Shultz, Richard H. and Godson, Roy. Dezinformatsia–Active Measures in Soviet Strategy. New York, Berkley Books, 1986. 241 p.
Book call no.: 327.47 S5622d 1986
Soviet Strategic Deception, edited by Brian D. Dailey and Patrick J. Parker. Lexington, MA, D.C. Heath, 1987. 538 p.
Book call no.: 355.033547 S7293
Dunn, Michael J. (Maj, USAF). The Soviet Disinformation Campaign. Maxwell AFB, AL, Apr 1987. 67 p. (Air University (U.S.) Air Command and Staff College. Student report)
Doc. call no.: M-U 43122 D9234s

George, Robert K. (Maj, USAF). An Historical Investigation of Soviet Strategic Deception. Maxwell AFB, AL, Apr 1987. 93 p. (Air University (U.S.) Air Command and Staff College. Student report)
Doc. call no.: M-U 43122 G348h

United States. Army. Center of Miltary History. Soviet Deception Operations in World War II, by Bruce R. Pirnie (Maj, USA). Washington, Aug 1985. 15 p.
Offers an analysis of Soviet deception operations during World War II with emphasis on Operation URANUS in November 1942 and Operation BAGRATION in June 1944.
Doc. call no.: M-U 43594-4

United States Army Command and General Staff College. Combat Studies Institute. Soviet Operational Deception: The Red Cloak, by Richard N. Armstrong (LtCol). Fort Leavenworth, KS, Dec 1988. 56 p.
Doc. call no.: M-U 36500-34

How the Communists Win the Minds of Men: Interview. American Legion Magazine 122:20-21+ Mar ’87.

TO WIN THE MINDS OF MEN
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=6731978
The Story of the Communist Propaganda War in East Germany

No one who is reasonable can withstand them because to them your reasonableness is their weapon. Détente is a weapon. Etc.

In 1958 this was said:
“War has changed its form, the Communists have discovered that a man killed by a bullet is useless. He can dig no coal. They have discovered that a demolished city is useless. Its mills produce no cloth. The objective of Communist warfare is to capture intact the minds of the people and their possessions, so they can be put to use. This is the modern conception of slavery that puts all the others in the kindergarten age.

So the idea that totalitarianism is gone, is wrong..
And note the march through the culture from 1968 on…
Kind of matches the planning documents written in the 30s, and the defectors claims from the 40s as to the work they did.
Its just realized that its prior method last century was so wasteful, when one can EASILY deceive the reasonable people, crush the unreasonable, and completely change everything piece by piece where each separate piece is not enough to convince the reasonable.
Its how ithappened in germany… and the key is that the reasonable accept all information that is conducice to their point, as valid. Even if its from a state known for collusion, assassination, manipulation, and such.
You can see a leaping example of it in the conversation above!!!!
It was applied to me when the germans who lived through wwii said something that favored the reasonable, and that swept away all the others who were trying to explain how it worked. The authors, the defectors, the historians, the diplomats, and my family.

he knew how to say what he wanted to say to people who have everything wrapped up wiht a certain reasonable end… and because of that REFUSE emphatically to follow any thread that does not lead there.

A lot of conservatives today are too quick to think that because liberals have some affinity for Marxist sentiments that they are actual Marxists.

using AFFINITY, they get to leave the REASONABLE the out they need to read the rest of him.

but once you expand it to say what it says, by adding some of the things they ahve affinity for, then you can see its just a word game.

AFFINITY – inherent likeness or agreement; close resemblance or connection.

however people like ***, will of course focus on the definition they WANT… a natural liking for or attraction to a person, thing, idea, etc.

in this way, by carefully choosing his words to always leave a logical out for the permanently incredulous, he gets them to listen to him.

but please do explain how having an admiration, affinity and such for Stalin and his ideas or Mao and his ideas naturally filters them along the lines you want them to!

that is, how is your assumption that they are taking the best and throwing out the worst have any validity?

we have a movement for abortion planned on top of something called the negro project. which was for the extermination of said indigent races.

that negro project was turned into planned parenthood. and even though hitlers people wrote to Gamble, sangers left hand man for advice, the whole of the movement is wrapped up in ambiguity that allows the REASONABLE the pacifier they need to sit still.

there are many times more abortion clinics in minority neighborhoods, and some films like the ones for acorn were made that show that they will take donations from racists to help abort children of color.

but as long as there exists even a semblence of an argument couched in ambiguity, those searchign for the reason NOT to decide, are given the pablum they need to go to sleep.

my major problem is that i cant get any of those guys to read instructions and methodologies that explain waht i just did above.

that is in the absence of education, the idiots win.

so if they never read things like this:
Using Ambiguity to Achieve Organizational Objectives
There are organizational leaders who embrace ambiguity for their own means as well to assist in affecting changes in the enterprise. This “use” of ambiguity is often in the form of ambiguous communications from executive management. Paul & Strbiak (1997) conclude that it is a widely recognized phenomenon that communications within organizations are often unclear and ambiguous. They further conclude that although clarity is usually considered desirable for communication, that ambiguity may be more effective in certain circumstances. Eisenberg (1984) uses the term strategic ambiguity to refer to “those instances where individuals use ambiguity purposefully to accomplish their goals”.

they wouldnt know the over 100 years of study, work and dynamics used to control groups of people, or the names of the researchrs.

they would deny that what i am saying is true or valid because I said it, not because it was or wasnt valid.

that is, they win because they are ignorant…

and the ones that know more, are losers becaause the ignorant have created boundaries to what they will accept in conversation.

of course to get them to assemble psychology, social science, politics, and history is way way too much…

even forensics:
Conversational Strategies Used to Create Crimes
”Part of the intelligence analysis in any criminal case begins by recognizing whether the crime was actually committed by the target or whether an illusion of a crime was created by the person wearing the mike” (p.29). This assertion frames Shuy’s intentions throughout the rest of his analysis. By identifying eleven conversational strategies (e.g. using ambiguity, contaminating the tape, and scripting the target) that are commonly employed by undercover officers and cooperating witnesses in the information gathering stage of a criminal investigation, Shuy shows that it is often just this created illusion that may result in a guilty verdict, rather than actual evidence of a crime
committed.

so ambiguity and the technique is known to those who are versed with those who manipulate others.

its use has been defined, researched and disemminated for over a century…

maybe they might use neos new book link to buy something?

I would recommend:
The Art of Deception: An Introduction to Critical Thinking : How to : Win an Argument, Defend a Case, Recognize a Fallacy, See Through a Deception,

how do you know whether you saw a snake or a worm if you have not spent your time learning anyting about either of them?

The author advocates using ambiguity, trickery, and insulting your opponent to try to win arguments. For example, he states that you should not use the words “all” or “some” or that you should use vague terms so that later on you can claim any of a number of different meanings. He also states that you must have a deep voice in order to be successful at arguing

notice how they say barry has a baritone when he is not a baritone, other than maybe a barry tone.

its funny reading a review and commentary from a person who has been schooled in REASONABLE, and how they completely are vulnerable to it all becayuse they think they are superior to it, the way others do.

and he even brings up *** tactic

He even has some ridiculous suggestions, like if you don’t agree with certain ideas, then you should attack all knowledge in general, and claim that there is a conspiracy among those people who support those ideas. In addition, he often suggests that you attack your opponent rather than their argument. This might be a good strategy for elementary school kids, but not for adults! He also states that you should never admit defeat, and you should refuse to be convinced of your opponent’s argument.

the one that everyone seems to argue that never gives in no matter what information is presented is WHO?

its a tactic, and one they probably dont relize they are using. but alas, if you read these books and you know lawyers books, you then know these games for what they are, even if the people using them have no such meta knowlege.

i learned my knowlege of deception from people who died if they made a mistake. that meant that they became VERY good at seeing deception.

the way that inner city bad neighborhood kids and rural hunters can spot IEDs in the theater of operation, but the suburbians are dropping like flies since they had video games and have no peripheral vision, and have no ‘alarm’ system (since in their game world a death was not a death but a disappointment).

the study of the soviet union and war is a study in nothing but deception.

those who hav studyed the methods recognize them when they are being employed, those that dont, sit there and come up with a greate reason why it wont work.. (despite it working all aroudn them and they are blind to it).

But I remain unimpressed by having my opinions misrepresented. I have gone back and briefly read a couple of what I consider to have been my most negative Obama posts, and I stand by everything I said in them.

In them all, I am quite consistent in saying that I believe (not that it’s the absolute truth, but that the evidence shows—and I list the evidence) that Obama has radical plans for America, and wishes to place it somewhere between a European social welfare state and Chavez’s Venezuela. I also state that I believe he is the most radical and dangerous president we’ve had in my lifetime.

So far events have borne me out—and I don’t mean an event or two, I mean virtually every move the man has made so far as president. Some of this danger is through his purposeful policies, both economic and foreign, and some is through his incompetence. The exact proportion of each cannot be known, but I believe it is a mix, and the proportion of the former (purposeful—as in moving towards socialism and media control at home and appeasement and naive internationalism abroad)—is rather high, as I see it.

I had said I would not engage you any more on this, but I’m tired of having my views misrepresented.

It does seem to me that you are softening your earlier claims. It seems to me you were saying something stronger than Obama could become an American tyrant. Heck, history can be very strange and even I would have to agree with that.

However, it seems to me you were saying that Obama wanted to be a dictator and he was actively working to become a dictator and your only qualification was that you didn’t know if he could pull it off.

But I’m not interested either in sifting through your posts for that claim, especially since this topic is stale and likely no one is reading it.

Frankly, though, given all this onus-shifting and hedging and handwaving and referring back to unspecified posts and huffing about not arguing with me anymore, I have concluded that you really can’t defend whatever you were saying very well.

That’s my conclusion.

But in your own comment here you say [emphasis mine] “the mechanics of how Obama could become an American tyrant.” That’s exactly what I think—he could, not that he will.

But I have no certainty about that, nor is it something that can be proven. However, about 100 of my posts here delineate the evidence I see of his possible intent to come as close as he can. He has shown a remarkable interest in supporting dictators and stifling free speech and dissent in this country, for example.

Unless you bring something new to this discussion, I’m not spending more time arguing with you about it.