|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
 Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| loose_ends wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
"Deep" Events. Sorta like "deep structure".
Chomsky would love this.  |
care to expand on your comparison? |
Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. In the context of espionage or military intelligence, it is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.
Disinformation techniques may also be found in commerce and government, used by one group to try to undermine the position of a competitor. It in fact is the act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth. Cooking-the-books might be considered a disinformation strategy that led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Unlike traditional propaganda and Big Lie techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions.
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio.
The Cold War made disinformation a recognized military and political tactic, though disinformation is generally more subtle and designed to remain unnoticed by the target audience.
Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, which is not deliberate; i.e., the person or news source forwarding the information doesn't know it's not true and/or actually believes it; thus, disinformation can be relayed as misinformation if the one relaying the message is not aware that the originator of the message deliberately manufactured false information and offered it up for distribution. Whether the target of such an attack is to mislead the end user of the information or if the disinformation is meant to destroy the credibility of those gullible enough to relay it (usually news agencies) and not really caring what damage it does to the ultimate recipient must be judged on a per case basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thank-you Regicide.
You lay it out quite well 
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:54 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
Thank-you Regicide.
You lay it quite well |
You are welcome.
For some reason, when someone mentioned Chomsky, disinformation and operation Mockingbird came to mind. For those who think discussing and exposing the first Kennedy assassination is "chasing a forty year old ghost" or that spending time on this has to be some kind of obsession, they should think again. Jack Kennedy�s execution was just the beginning of their decades long crime spree and operation Mockingbird continues to cover it up.
You see, when you have a powerful group of people who can literally get away with murder after murder, what is to stop them from doing what they want? And when they pick up troops along the way to help them out by labeling any dissenter as ill, thus discrediting what has been exposed, it makes their job easier. They literally have unpaid help to assist them in their criminal enterprise.
More and more people are fed up with these lies and could care less what the unwitting members of Operation Mockingbird say or do.
In 1948 Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects. Soon afterwards it was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC). This became the espionage and counter-intelligence branch of the Central Intelligence Agency. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on "propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."
Later that year Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence the domestic American media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham (Washington Post) to run the project within the industry. Graham himself recruited others who had worked for military intelligence during the war. This included James Truitt, Russell Wiggins, Phil Geyelin, John Hayes and Alan Barth. Others like Stewart Alsop, Joseph Alsop and James Reston, were recruited from within the Georgetown Set. According to Deborah Davis (Katharine the Great): "By the early 1950s, Wisner 'owned' respected members of the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles."
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| America & the freedom loving world thanks you as well |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This may exlplain Ya-ta Boy, MOS and Homer's problems:
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know � particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge � they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and�counter-intuitively, perhaps�if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| igotthisguitar wrote: |
| America & the freedom loving world thanks you as well |
This may exlplain Ya-ta Boy, MOS and Homer's problems:
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a psychological phenomenon which refers to the discomfort felt at a discrepancy between what you already know or believe, and new information or interpretation. It therefore occurs when there is a need to accommodate new ideas, and it may be necessary for it to develop so that we become "open" to them. Neighbour (1992) makes the generation of appropriate dissonance into a major feature of tutorial (and other) teaching: he shows how to drive this kind of intellectual wedge between learners' current beliefs and "reality".
Beyond this benign if uncomfortable aspect, however, dissonance can go "over the top", leading to two interesting side-effects for learning:
if someone is called upon to learn something which contradicts what they already think they know � particularly if they are committed to that prior knowledge � they are likely to resist the new learning. Even Carl Rogers recognised this. Accommodation is more difficult than Assimilation, in Piaget's terms.
and�counter-intuitively, perhaps�if learning something has been difficult, uncomfortable, or even humiliating enough, people are less likely to concede that the content of what has been learned is useless, pointless or valueless. To do so would be to admit that one has been "had", or "conned".
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually,
the evidence speaks for itself.
| regicide wrote: |
WHAT IN THE HELL ARE THE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS DOING STANDING AROUND TWIDDLING THEIR THUMBS. NO, THEIR THUMBS ARE UP THEIR ASS!
SHOTS HAVE BEEN FIRED.
THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO AT THIS POINT MOVE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT.
JOHNSONS MEN ARE.
GET REAL AND GET TO THAT POINT
THERE IS NO *beep* EXCUSE FOR WHAT THEY DID
QUIT DEFENDING THEM
IT DOESNT MATTER IF THIS IS OSWALD. STOP FOCUSING ON THAT ISSUE FOCUS ON WHAT THE SECRET SERVICE DID AT THAT POINT.
THE ANSWER IS THEY KNEW SHOTS WERE FIRED AS SEEN BY THEIR ACTION YET THEY DID NOT MOVE TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT!
THEY HAD AN ETERNITY ( EIGHT SECONDS) TO MOVE AND PROTECT THE PRESIDENT
OF COURSE. THAT WAS NOT THEIR JOB FUCTION THAT DAY.
THEIR JOB WAS TO ENABLE THE KILLING OF THE PRESIDENT.
IF THERE IS ONE WEAK PIECE OF EVIDENCE YOU LOSERS FOCUS ON IT AND BELIEVE THE CASE HAS FALLEN APART. THE FACT IS THERE ARE A THOUSAND PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT BLOW THE OFFICIAL CASE OUT OF THE WATER YET YOU CONTINUE YOUR IDIOTIC CRUSADE TO DEFEND THE MURDERERS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
YOU CALL US FREAKS YOU PEA BRAIN.
LOOK AT WHAT THE REST OF THIS PICTURE IS SAYING.
THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS RUN TO MCADAMS AND GET HIS PATHETIC SPIN ON THE EVIDENCE UNCOVERED.
THE MAN IN THE DOOR IS PART OF THIS PICTURE. IT DOES NOT MAKE OR BREAK THIS CASE.
QUIT FOCUSING ON THE WEAK POINTS OF WHAT HAS BEEN EXPOSED AND ADMIT WHAT HAS BEEN EXPOSED.
NO ONE SAID THE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS ARE LOOKING AT THE MAN IN THE DOORWAY.
YOU SEE. YOU DO NOT PAY ATTENTION AND YOU LOOK AT THIS THING NOT WITH ROSE COLORED GLASSES, BUT WITH NO VISION AT ALL.
YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT ONE THING. WHO IS IN THAT DOOR DOESNT MATTER.
NOW START FOCUSING ON WHAT THE SECRET SERVICE DIDNT DO WHEN THE SHOTS RANG OUT.
THE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS ARE REACTING TO THE SOUND OF A SHOT. AND DID I HEAR THAT YOU ACTUALLY BUY INTO THE "IT SOUNDED LIKE A BACKFIRE OR A FIRECRACKER" !
GOOD GOD MAN. THESE ARE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS WHOSE SOLE FUNCTION OF EXISTANCE IS TO PROTECT THE PRESIDENT. THEY DONT DISMISS LOUD NOISES AS FIRECRACKERS AND BACKFIRES.
UNBELIEVABLE YOU BUY INTO THE SPIN
HOOK LINE AND SINKER.
|
...and then there's my personal favorite:
| regicide wrote: |
| YOUR KIND IS A DYING BREED AND THERE IS ONE THING I AM SURE ABOUT. YOU WONT BE CALLING US NAMES VERY LONG |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| America & the freedom loving world thanks you as well |
You are shameless, IGTG. Shameless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Quote: |
| America & the freedom loving world thanks you as well |
You are shameless, IGTG. Shameless. |
Amazon Review of "Case Closed"
29 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
Mind closed is the more appropriate title , July 9, 2006
By A Reader - See all my reviews
This book is not only tendentious garbage--it is dangerous as well. All of Posner's deceptive shaping of the evidence depends entirely on the reader not knowing a damn thing about the case. He is a good writer--a genius worthy of Sammy Glick and Joseph Goebbels. Read carefully, Posner's sources are revealed to be official ones--current or former members of governments, police forces, courts. And all sources that he attacks are citizens--and there are thousands of non-governmental sources in this case who provide a mountain of evidence for conspiracy. Posner trashes every one he can get his tricky hands on. So pro-conspiracy witnesses are not just mistaken, they are insane, drunkards, abusers, liars, publicity hounds ( unlike himself , of course) . grudge holders, folks with hidden agendas ( again, unlike all those intelligence agents he believes in so devoutly). Let the reader beware: This is State Propaganda at its most clever and diabolical, and the purpose of the book is to convince the reader that only losers believe in conspiracies, those who have not succeeded in this greatest of all possible societies. Sour Grapes , in other words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nowhere Man
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2007 6:43 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
I think I keep an open mind about conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, they see, to take on religious qualities at times.
Your citing of cognitive dissonance does no service to the point you hope to make.
Cognitive dissonance is indeed a real thing, and it's my sincere hope that everyone is aware of of it, especially on a stormy board like this one.
However, unlike hypocrisy, I believe it's a totally open game when you're going to try to attribute cognitive dissonance as a pseudo-answer as to why someone supports the point of view they do.
In other words, cognitive dissonance, if it deserves a proper write-off, could be used to write off pretty much every single claim on this board.
In other other words, i think psychoanalysis serves a strong purpose in helping one make sense of the world, but, on the other hand, it doesn't do much in the way of defeating arguments/positions that people hold.
Clearly, some people (with high GRE scores) think otherwise, but there are as many on the side of those who believe there is no conspiracy as on yours.
As a final note, could you confine your quest for truth in the JFK assassination to a single thread?
It;s not like news is rolling in about this. It may be interesting to you, but you're doing a disservice to yourself by becoming a one-topic wonder.
Is there anything else in the world of current events that interests you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
China Lays Out "Conspiracy" Claims Against Dalai Lama
By Chris Buckley
BEIJING (Reuters) - China accused Tibetan groups on Tuesday of planning suicide attacks following last month's riots and protests but left key questions about evidence and its response ... unanswered.
A spokesman told a news conference in Beijing that police had seized guns, bullets and explosives in some Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and repeated the accusation the Dalai Lama was linked to Tibetan groups that had organized the recent unrest.
An aide to the Dalai Lama immediately denied what he said were "baseless" allegations.
The claims came as China's anti-riot force was issued a mobilization order to ensure a trouble-free Beijing Olympic Games in the wake of the anti-Chinese unrest across Tibetan areas.
MORE ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080401/wl_nm/china_tibet_dc_2;_ylt=At2Zn5Vi22x2N6DVr608rlX9xg8F
Last edited by igotthisguitar on Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:56 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cognitive dissonance??? Who the hell told Regi about cognitive dissonance? Whoever it is, stop it. Its scaring me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| deadman wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
Agreed. A better way of describing what the OP wrote is to say that conspiracy theories arise from an inadequate capacity to evaluate 'evidence' (facts), and a tendency to fit facts to a theory, not vice-versa. It's noteworthy that most conspiracy theorists never seem to have any doubts about the theories they are examining. And everything is always all-or-nothing. Either you believe what "the government" is saying - lock, stock and barrel - or you believe in the conspiracy theory.
Conspiracy theorists believe in the theory as an end in itself, not a means to an end: to get at the truth of a given situation. They seem to function more as belief systems than as analytical frameworks. |
I love self appointed experts.
You speak with such resounding authority and confidence! But again you are making pretty much useless generalisations.
The funny thing is you seem to demonstrate all the qualities of the very people you attack
1. You adopt an extremely simplified view of the world, and then think you know all about it!
| Quote: |
| And everything is always all-or-nothing |
2. It's all or nothing for you: All conspiracy theories are false. Anyone who strays from the official line is a conspiracy theorist.
| Quote: |
| Conspiracy theorists believe in the theory as an end in itself, not a means to an end: to get at the truth of a given situation. |
3. You certainly don't consider a conspiracy theory as a means to get at the truth of a situation! They are all false! They have been deliberately designed to attack democracy!
| Quote: |
conspiracy theories arise from an inadequate capacity to evaluate 'evidence' (facts),
|
4. You have an inadequate capacity to evaluate facts. First you ask "Is this labelled a conspiracy theory? If so, all the facts they claim are false, and have been made up to confuse ordinary people"
| Quote: |
| It's noteworthy that most conspiracy theorists never seem to have any doubts about the theories they are examining. |
5. It is noteworthy that you never seem to have any doubts about whether a conspiracy theory has any truth to it, or for that matter, about the truth of your opinions. You have absolutely no capacity for self evaluation!
I hope you can see that you make no contribution to the truth. You just post your fanatic and ill thought out opinions. You're as bad as the worst kind of conspiracy theorist.
There are plenty of people on both sides of the debate making contributions to the truth. You are just not one of them. |
Excellent response, deadman. I'd have to agree with everything in it.
MOS' presentation and lamentation of "effects on democracy" are reminiscent of those of The Nation editor and known CIA disinformation asset (he has authored articles on their website) Max Holland. In The Wilson Quarterly, Spring 2001, Holland hangs all responsibility for �America�s loss of faith in public institutions on Jim Garrison.�
Holland continues: �Shaw�s terrible miscarriage of justice trial had immense consequences for the political culture of the US. Of all of the legacies of the 1960�s, none has been more unambiguously negative in the American public�s corrosive cynicism toward the federal government. Though that attitude is commonly traced to the disillusioning experiences of VietNam and Watergate, its genesis actually lies in the aftermath of the JFK assassination, before antiwar protests were common. Dissatisfaction with the official verdict that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone brought into a widespread conviction that the federal government was incompetent or suppressing the truth, a fiendishly clever operation of the Russian KGB, a clever conspiracy successful in seducing the public because of the gullibility of a vainglorious dupe, Jim Garrison. The KGB slipped a bogus story into a crypto-Communist newspaper Paese Sera,� and the beat goes on with Max Holland and MOS.
Last edited by bacasper on Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
regicide
Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Disinformation is the deliberate dissemination of false information. It may include the distribution of forged documents, manuscripts, and photographs, or propagation of malicious rumours and fabricated intelligence. In the context of espionage or military intelligence, it is the deliberate spreading of false information to mislead an enemy as to one's position or course of action. It also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless.
Disinformation techniques may also be found in commerce and government, used by one group to try to undermine the position of a competitor. It in fact is the act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth. Cooking-the-books might be considered a disinformation strategy that led to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.
Unlike traditional propaganda and Big Lie techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions.
Another technique of concealing facts, or censorship is also used if the group can affect such control. When channels of information cannot be completely closed, they can be rendered useless by filling them with disinformation, effectively lowering their signal-to-noise ratio.
The Cold War made disinformation a recognized military and political tactic, though disinformation is generally more subtle and designed to remain unnoticed by the target audience.
Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, which is not deliberate; i.e., the person or news source forwarding the information doesn't know it's not true and/or actually believes it; thus, disinformation can be relayed as misinformation if the one relaying the message is not aware that the originator of the message deliberately manufactured false information and offered it up for distribution. Whether the target of such an attack is to mislead the end user of the information or if the disinformation is meant to destroy the credibility of those gullible enough to relay it (usually news agencies) and not really caring what damage it does to the ultimate recipient must be judged on a per case basis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
