is it just me?

[wags]

<snip>
So, I'd like to ask a straight question to Wags :
- Is it reasonable to then presume, that you added this “8.0” possibility because you think someone in particular here, or elsewhere, fits this “cyberbully profile” and may justify authorship to the “madness and method” that Rose asked if it was just her that sensed ?

To quote Luis....



HA! I would love to answer this but I won't!

Mikado

It is reasonable for you presume, however it is only another probability that needed to be added to the list Rose compiled. Use the information if you think it is relevant on its own merit and by your own reasoning.

[wags]

Luis on Bullyonline link:-

...

That’s it. Enlightening, on a general perspective, I’d say.

Good!

But I was under the impression that the objective of this thread was to question “Is it just me ?” regarding this very specific forum, and the people involved in it, both direct and indirectly. Not as a kind of “education” on how to deal with several general “types of behavior and situations”, important as that may be, and is indeed.

,,,

That 'Is it just me", was the phase that drew me to that particular site. That question is one that is symptomatic of being in such an environment. It does talk about how to deal with these situations, it is a vast resource.

[LuisP]

That 'Is it just me", was the phase that drew me to that particular site. That question is one that is symptomatic of being in such an environment. It does talk about how to deal with these situations, it is a vast resource.

Concur.
So much so that phrased liked that, it is almost a pleonasm. For it is rather redundant to point out that such a question denotes the fact that the questioner is a sufferer of the symptoms he questions.

Then again, the question was aimed at others, not at self, for as it goes without dispute that by asking it the answer was already provided, as far as who asked it goes.

And that is my point.

For several people answered with their own thoughts on the subject, including me. I even gave an example - figurative, for education’s sake - of what might be the reason behind what may appear to others as madness when, in fact, it could just be a twisted method to achieve objectives other than the apparent.

Meaning, all participation was directed at understanding ongoing and relevant facts felt, or shared, on a more or less common basis, by everyone.

Since you referred a specific article to such a common basis, I must insist that it is reasonable to assume – by a broad margin and without narrow mindedness – that it was considered to be applicable to the case in point, that is, as justification for a given person, and not as a relevant on its own merit or through any individuals reasoning, as you now - also insist - was all you intended !

I only emphasize this point because I think (perhaps wrongly) that it is very important since you are - to my own understanding, that is - rather privileged to address it.


If you do not wish to answer that point clearly, it clearly is within your right to just say so, and be done with it.

[wags]

Luis,

I did not wish to add any greater weight than the presumption of a relevance in this case. But to go beyond that would run counter to the remedial action for this particular probability.

[LuisP]

Wags,

Thanks for answering. I do, if I may, understand what you mean.
But this is something that is "felt" by several people - I dare say, by you too - and as such it should, decisively, be dealt with. As in, definitively. On penalty of lingering, like an unhealing ulcer.

That is why I'd like to state, for the record, that I disagree with your remedial action.

For it is far better, to my understanding, to have "an end with pain, than a pain without end".

[wags]

Wags,

Thanks for answering. I do, if I may, understand what you mean.
But this is something that is "felt" by several people - I dare say, by you too - and as such it should, decisively, be dealt with. As in, definitively. On penalty of lingering, like an unhealing ulcer.

That is why I'd like to state, for the record, that I disagree with your remedial action.

For it is far better, to my understanding, to have "an end with pain, than a pain without end".

We actually agree Luis, the remedial action has required decisiveness. The remedial action is very decisive.

[FM No Static At All]

7. The Unknowable Cause behind the cause
- Possible, and very likely. Whoever thinks knows everything is but an Ignorant. Therefore, it goes without question that some “unknowable cause” may be the cause behind any and every situation.

As to “troubling similarities”, I’ll leave it at that for it surely is only me and my twisted mind at work.

Complicated enough, as it is.

Maybe not as complicated as you may think. See: Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars

From the Preface:
Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars, An Introduction Programming Manual was uncovered quite by accident on July 7, 1986 when an employee of Boeing Aircraft Co. purchased a surplus IBM copier for scrap parts at a sale, and discovered inside details of a plan, hatched in the embryonic days of the "Cold War" which called for control of the masses through manipulation of industry, peoples' pastimes, education and political leanings. It called for a quiet revolution, putting brother against brother, and diverting the public's attention from what is really going on.

[Mikado14]

I just ran across this.

I was looking at entry links and saw one from an IP in Germany:

http://jansrose.blogspot.de/search/label/Mikado

"I am feeling moved to make a comment on the Linda-Mikado situation. Here it is:

I am absolutely certain that Mikado knows [and has always known] more than he cops to, beyond what he has admitted about his own use of sock puppet characters. (Merlin, Ridgerunner, Bulwark, for those keeping score)."

The date of the above was in December 2011.

The link below is on this forum from December 2011 but a few days after the above.

viewtopic.php?p=30889#p30889

Since I didn't see this before and did not know of it's existence until now, I wish to make a comment.

The above link explains all the "sock puppets" I ever had along with individual explanations. The Bulwark "puppet" was created to converse with Andrew as mentioned but it should be noted that it was admitted to him in March of 2008. It was never used again. The other two, one was as stated but the other - ridgerunner has an explanation that involves a real person. Linda could have met this person in July of 2011 but refused. To claim that the person doesn't exist when invited to meet the person and refuse and continue to claim the person as non-existent is exactly like a child putting their hands over their eyes and singing out loud so they do not have to see or hear the truth. Apparently, it is contagious.

How about all the sock puppets on this forum that have originated from one person. I am still finding them in the membership list and the latest was Yucca66 with an IP traced back to you know where. I have found 5 different memberships started here in the past several months of going through them all with originating IP's from Yucca Valley area.

And then we have:

"I am also absolutely certain that he is wrong when he claims that Linda has no spooky friends. She does and I could tell you how I know that but then they would have to kill me.

She is also well aware that some of those friends, the ones who seem to be helping to push her Dad's story forward, might actually be using her father's Lifework as counterintelligence bait. If so, then it is fitting, she says, since (we have been told) Townsend was an instrumental part of many CI operations.*

THERE! That should hold me on this topic for several months now."

Spooky friends? Hell Rose, I have spooky friends and by that if you mean ones that work for alphabet agencies the answer is yes, I do have them. However, the difference is I don't go around threatening individuals as Linda has done. Remember Fred and how see threatened that Carlos was gonna show up on his doorstep? Really? Do you really delude yourself into believing that tripe from someone as delusional as Linda? Even in Vegas your husband found it unbelievable about Carlos. In fact, just look up Chuck Norris's bio. There is no freakin' way he is Juan/Carlos or whatever name someone wants to give him especially after one reads the storyline and compare it to Norris' bio.

I am venting after seeing this.

I really think that all of you should be spending some money and utilizing the FOIA. But hey, why spend money when it is so much easier to just make up stories and then say to those who question that they should prove them wrong.

And now you may have connected why I don't read at the Token, it would probably raise my ire and I would feel the need to rebut, no matter how long ago. Sometimes, those that are nice to you and you think you can trust only prove you wrong and make you feel like a smacked ass.

Doesn't anyone have any accountability for the things they say? Am I the only asshole that does?

I just needed to vent after reading this, if anyone person or animals were harmed in any way, it was not intentional.

Mikado

[re-rose]

Those statements were made two and a half years ago Mikado....in frustration after listening to months of the rehashed rehash.

I have other priorities now. And many other interests.

rose

[LuisP]

Those statements were made two and a half years ago Mikado....in frustration after listening to months of the rehashed rehash.

I have other priorities now. And many other interests.

rose

If I may,
Yes, you do have.
Thanks for having them, instead of two and a half years others.

Water under a bridge is water under a bridge.



Is it just me, I feel like asking ... that looks, definitely, downstream ?
Looking that way, I worry about the ongoing question "Is it just me?" and the Eight possible explanations for not being the only one.

Why ?

Because I will NOT play into any of them.
Or so I try.