Jackel’s 25 rules of disinformation

Written By: - Date published: 1:15 pm, June 1st, 2011 - 129 comments
Categories: Politics - Tags:

25 Rules of Disinformation

Written Published by The Jackal at 12:05 PM
This note provides a handy reference to most of the games used by spin-doctors and other assorted disinformation artists. Knowledge of these tricks enables us to spot their handiwork where ever they might appear. Those who’ve been on the receiving end of an injustice by Government or a Corporate will be familiar with many of these rules.
lprent: The following is a section of one of the edits of H. Michael Sweeny’s “Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation” which has been wildly dispersed on the net. I will send a e-mail to the author if I can find a valid address.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil: Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it — especially if you are an executive, administrator, politician, official, or other public figure. 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 to show that the original “topic” is being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare you!” gambit.
3. Create rumour mongers: Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumours 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 rumours”. 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 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 or 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 by denying 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. 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 candour 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 except where 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 and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favourable verdict 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 favourably. 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.

[lprent: Updated: Removed portions struck out. Added is underlined. My comments in tagged and bold. ]

129 comments on “Jackel’s 25 rules of disinformation”

  1. higherstandard 1

    This has been doing the rounds on the on the interwebs for some years, can be applied to most corporations, gumints, QANGOs etc etc.

  2. Peter 2

    “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 favourably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.”

    Nationals approach to rail instead of road in AKL

  3. ianmac 3

    Good idea MS. Have printed it out and can apply it to many comments.
    Mmmm. John Key = No 9 = “avoid discussing issues by denying they have any credibility” = use often= interviewers give up = Key wins.

  4. todd 4

    The Chinese 50 Center’s seem to be pretty effective as outlined in these rules. I should just clarify that the Jackal didn’t write this and holds no liability if you experience any harm or loss when utilizing 🙂

  5. vto 5

    Darren Hughes has done a perfect rule 25.

  6. bobo 6

    Do these tips work with rampaging spouses?

  7. Good, I’ll be sure to point the disinfo tactics out if used when I try to give some well documented information the next time. That will be fun.

    By the way Higher Standard is perfectly right when he points out that this has been doing the rounds for a bit and is not written by the Jackal as such. It would have been more correct if he had give the link to the original which was written by a gentleman called H. Michael Sweeney according to this website

    • weka 7.1

      That’s bad. Plagarism is a bad look at the best of times, and you only have to do this once for everything else you do to come into question (I’m thinking The Jackel more than TS who look like they’ve republished without thinking, whereas TJ should know better). Hopefully both blogs will fix this asap.

      • jackal 7.1.1

        I was not aware of any blog rules that state you’re not allowed to copy and re-post information that is readily available on the net. This information was obviously not copyrighted.

        I gained the information from Patrick O’Brien’s website: http://obrien.wordpress.com/notes/2/

        He retained the Unknown Author at the bottom of the post, which I did not initially notice. I have now included this in my blog post to alleviate any confusion. TS has the right to utilize any material on the Jackal. They simply acknowledged where the information had come from by including the Jackal in the header. I don’t usually copy and paste entire articles, however the relevance of this information is such that it warranted further dissemination.

        You’ve effectively utilized rule 10 and 11 while I’ve used rule 2 and: To argue that this is somehow plagiarism is to essentially argue against how the internet works. I suggest you shut down your computers and put your fingers in your ears – rule 18.

        • weka 7.1.1.1

          Copyright is a separate issue. What you did was post something on your blog as if *you* had written it. I read the post on TS as if it was authored by you, not simply cut and pasted by you. Attribution is the standard on any website with any credibility irrrespective of copyright issues.

          I find it a bit weird that you think that presenting something as your own work when it’s not is how the internet works. Sure some people do that, but I guess it depends on how you want your credibility to stand.

          As an aside to that, and this is more a matter of style, putting the attribution at the bottom still leaves people to read the post as if you have written it. I know that I often take into account the author of a piece while I am reading it. It’s why I don’t particularly like how TS handles this because too often it’s too easy to read a piece and not know who’s written it..

          And TS still needs to make it clear that your didn’t author the above post

          • weka 7.1.1.1.1

            Oh, and I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt – that you didn’t intend to pass this off as your own work and were just being a bit slack on the details. So plagarism is perhaps too strong a word. My points about integrity and the need for correct attribution still work 🙂

            • jackal 7.1.1.1.1.1

              The copyright aspect has been applied under rule 4. A little bit of rule 5 is always effective, sorry about that. I’ve also utilized 10 and a bit more of 18 in the following. Then I’m going to use rule 25 because it’s bedtime 🙂

          • jackal 7.1.1.1.2

            Copying and pasting material is not a separate issue to Copyright. The information had no copyright. That means I can utilize it in any way that I see fit.

            Blog’s would become virtually unreadable if authors included a reference to every source of material from which they gather information. Including a “Copy and pasted” statement next to every sourced piece of information, as you seem to be requesting is nonsense!

            I really think you’re being completely ridiculous in saying I have lost credibility because TS has included “Jackal” in the title. Are you suggesting that the title should be changed to “The Unknown Authors 25 Rules of Disinformation.” What is particularly stupid is that you’re asking me to site an author when that person is unknown.

            You should have noted that I made it clear in this thread well before your comments that I was not the author. I don’t believe you’re particularly qualified in pseudo editing other peoples blogs and will not be changing anything further.

            • J Mex 7.1.1.1.2.1

              The Standard authors seem to be confused as to whether you wrote this or not…

              ‘The Jackal has written a brilliant analysis of the 25 forms of political disinformation”

              Might want that changed to “The Jackal has brilliantly copied and pasted an analysis of the 25 forms of political disinformation’

              • terryg

                ‘The Jackal has written a brilliant analysis of the 25 forms of political disinformation”

                Might want that changed to:

                “The Jackal has a brilliant analysis of the 25 forms of political disinformation”

                FIFY

        • travellerev 7.1.1.2

          The author has a name. It is H. Michael Sweeney. And while it is OK to copy and paste it is not OK to claim it actively or passively as your own if it isn’t. That is the issue here. That goes for all writing or creating, even on the internet.

          The fact that you do not seem to be able to make that distinction is worrying to say the least

  8. weka 8

    The title of this post is “Jackel’s 25 rules of disinformation”. That’s a clear statement that you wrote the rules. You didn’t. It should be changed.

    “Blog’s would become virtually unreadable if authors included a reference to every source of material from which they gather information. Including a “Copy and pasted” statement next to every sourced piece of information, as you seem to be requesting is nonsense!”

    *sigh*. No. What I”m saying is that when you cut and paste the whole of something from somewhere else and post it, in its entirety, with nothing of your own, in your blog so that it looks like you wrote it, you are doing your readers a disservice. It’s also a form of dishonesty.

    There is a difference between attributing ideas and sources of information (and there are different conventions for doing that depending on the forum), and attributing a large cut and paste. The latter is very easy to do. Quite frankly I’ll be reading your blog differently from now on given you’ve seem to have just said that you think it’s ok to cut and paste other people’s work and use it as if it’s your own.

    • PeteG 8.1

      It’s not just the title that implies it is the author’s own work.

      Jackel’s 25 rules of disinformation
      By: The Standard – Date published: 1:15 pm, June 1st, 2011 – 27 comments

      25 Rules of Disinformation
      Written by The Jackal at 12:05 PM

      It still clearly says “written by The Jackal”. Not a good look, and hopefully The Jackal will learn from this, and it’s a reminder to the rest of us.

      I know The Standard is not a single entity, and I know double checking everything before posting can be difficult when multiple authors are involved, and things can still slip through the net – but unfortunately this also reflects on the standards of The Standard, even if anyone who might have vetted this post may have reasonably assumed it was an original piece by the author.

      For all that I assumed that it was a cut and paste, that’s just how it looked to me, but still not excused for not attributing.

      You should have noted that I made it clear in this thread well before your comments that I was not the author.

      I still can’t see anything in the blog post that attributes it correctly. It still suggests it is the author’s own work. It is not in blockquotes. Noting in a later comment in the thread is nowhere near enough.

      [I have more important things to worry about than this bullshit. The Jackel clearly didn’t mean to claim it as its own work but didn’t make that clear. I accidentally got the impression it was. I don’t care you the author is, we didn’t claim it as our own. Getting yourself worked up to tears over this is beneath you, PeteG. Eddie]

      • PeteG 8.1.1

        I’m not getting “worked up in tears” over this, it’s not my integrity that is at stake.

        I’m very surprised by your response Eddie, I can understand The Jackel perhaps not being aware of the implications but I thought you would be.

        Do you think simply copying and pasting other people’s the work without attribution is nothing to worry about here? Is that the sort of standard The Standard accepts?

        Copying and pasting material is not a separate issue to Copyright. The information had no copyright. That means I can utilize it in any way that I see fit.

        If The Jackel didn’t know who the author was how would they know if it was copyrighted or not?

        • The Voice of Reason 8.1.1.1

          It is not acceptable to use someone else’s work without attribution. The Standard’s front page still claims that “The Jackal has written a brilliant analysis of the 25 forms of political disinformation”.
           
          He didn’t write it and as soon as he saw the line above should have asked for a correction and explanation to be added. Even without the Jackal asking, The Standard should have put up a correction as soon as it was known that the article was wrongly attributed to him.
           
          There is no way around this, Eddie. Theft of intellectual property is not acceptable under any circumstances. In the real world it gets you expelled from university or fired from your work. As Irish Bill says, you need to own your mistakes, and a mistake has definitely been made on this occasion and needs to be corrected.

          • travellerev 8.1.1.1.1

            Wow, we agree on something. LOL.

            • The Voice of Reason 8.1.1.1.1.1

              Had to happen one day, Ev! Actually I suspect we probably agree on a lot of things, but differ wildly on the some of the more controversial subjects that come up here or on your blog. I’d like to think both our hearts are in the right place.
               
              I just had a gander at The Jackal’s site and I see he is still claiming credit for the article there. Poor form indeed.

              • I’m glad you feel this way VOR, I tend to agree. On both your conclusion about our heart being in the same place and the poor form exhibited by the Jackal.
                Cheers!

      • travellerev 8.1.2

        Very bad response Eddy. It is of the utmost importance that a site such as the Standard adheres to basic rules of engagement and integrity. He didn’t clearly didn’t want to claim it as his own work. There was nothing clear about it otherwise people would not have responded the way they did. In fact he defended his actions by stating that copying and pasting without mentioning source or at least disclaiming ownership was fine.

        A simple apology would have sufficed but both his and your reaction are insulting and dishonest. Bullying being one of those rules of disinformation as I recall.

        The Jackal (is the Jackal perhaps you and is that why it was clear to you that he didn’t want to claim the piece as his own?) needs to brush up on nettiquette and the Standard needs to brush up on it’s Standards and yes, you should care about who writes what.

        • PeteG 8.1.2.1

          If Eddie was in politics they’d know that often it’s not the original sin that does the most damage, it’s ballsing up the response to it. What could have simply been an amusing post, lesson learnt, attribution acknowledged and corrected, has turned to custard, with lumps, and it’s burning to the bottom with the heat still on.

          VoR, Ev, I’ve noticed that the longer you get to know different posters in blogs (most of them) the more you realise that there’s much in common that passes unnoticed, it’s the points of difference that get all the attention.

      • weka 8.1.3

        I don’t see PeteG or anyone getting worked up in tears over this. The Standard still has the intro and titles claiming that The Jackel wrote this piece. He didn’t. Is TS going to change that?

      • Armchair Critic 8.1.4

        Not attributing sources is a fundamental mistake, Eddie. A full and proper correction, including an explanation is the only remedy.
        The alternative is to leave up a post that is openly dishonest, at a fundamental level.

  9. He shoots; he scores! The Jackal gets a SMOG (Social Media Own Goal)!!

  10. 1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil:
    I’ve seen this in action time and time again
    One example
    John Tamihere http://oilcrash.com/articles/whatinfo.htm
    Rang a member of PowerLess New Zealand on or about the 31st of August, to arrange a meeting for the 14th of September at the Beehive. I duly sent him a copy of the documentary “The End of Suburbia” (http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/suburbia.htm) on DVD and about 6 hours of audio interviews on CD, including:

    Colin Campbell — The founder of ASPO “Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas” (http://www.peakoil.net);
    Mike Ruppert — Author and owner of the website http://www.fromthewilderness.com/index.html;
    Richard Heinberg — Author of “The Party’s Over” (http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/party.htm);
    Matt Savinar JD — Author and owner of http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html;
    Julian Darley’s “Letter from Earth” lecture, available from http://www.globalpublicmedia.com.

    I also sent him a copy of Matts book “The Oil Age is Over”, only 126 pages (http://www.oilcrash.com/articles/age_over.htm). Due to the pristine condition on return, it was obvious none of the information had been listened to, read, or watched. Also the meeting was cancelled.
    ………………………………………………..
    And the prick still bullshits ‘his’ people. Maybe they got the wrong brother?

    • nadis 10.1

      I might constructively suggest you completely misread your audience. Sending a politician more than a one page executive summary is never gonna work.

      And I think you have a definitional problem around calling it the oil crash – that kind of implies prices will go down. The world will never run out of oil – but we may not like the cost of oil.Since WW2 the real price of oil has risen by less than 2% per annum.

      Over the next 60 years I would guess that rate would speed up considerably, but thats a good thing. Alternative energy will become more cost effective (good thing) as will alternative sources of petroleum (bad thing). But oil prices wont go up for ever, substitution of other energy sources will ensure that.

  11. RobC 11

    No prizes for guessing who I thought of when reading Rule No. 13

  12. jackal 12

    I believe I have already answered most of these questions, however:

    If The Jackel didn’t know who the author was how would they know if it was copyrighted or not?

    Firstly the work is not copyrighted because the author is not identified. Rule 1 of copyrighting material; put your name on it. Secondly it has already been widely disseminated.

    He didn’t write it and as soon as he saw the line above should have asked for a correction and explanation to be added.

    I added my own correction and explanation at post #4: “I should just clarify that the Jackal didn’t write this and holds no liability if you experience any harm or loss when utilizing.”

    In fact he defended his actions by stating that copying and pasting without mentioning source or at least disclaiming ownership was fine.

    That is misleading. There are too many sources to site that have utilized this information on their websites. Despite what some are claiming, the author is unknown. To state the obvious again, you cannot credit an unknown source.

    Is the Jackal perhaps you and is that why it was clear to you that he didn’t want to claim the piece as his own?

    Eddie is not the Jackal.

    A simple apology would have sufficed but both his and your reaction are insulting and dishonest. Bullying being one of those rules of disinformation as I recall.

    Pfft! You want the Jackal and The Standard to apologise for providing relevant and interesting articles to read. Get off the grass!

    I just had a gander at The Jackal’s site and I see he is still claiming credit for the article there. Poor form indeed.

    Wrong! There’s “Unknown Author” on the Jackal post. What exactly does that mean do you think? Blogger automatically places “written by the Jackal” on anything posted to the site. That is a normal feature of blog sites.

    With the powers invested in me, I know crown PeteG king of rule 7.

    • marty mars 12.1

      You sourced the article from somewhere even if the author was thought unknown. Linking to where you sourced it would have sorted it IMO. The implication is that you wrote it, although after reading a few of them I immediately thought it was american. Take it on the chin – no need to get defensive.

    • I have given you the name of the author twice in previous comments and PeteG actually did what you should have done and that is Google the name. It turns out that there was an explicit copyright and conditions for use of the article. You are dishonest and untrustworthy as a blogger, writer and poster which I find very sad to find here at the Standard because in all the years I have been commenting here I had become used to integrity with regards to the published material to say the least.
      As per the conditions it is not up to me to demand correction or action from the Standards moderators but IMHO you have damaged the work of a great many admirable posters and Standardistas with your behaviour.
       

      • Armchair Critic 12.2.1

        As per the conditions it is not up to me to demand correction or action from the Standards moderators…
        though it is tempting to make such a demand…
        …IMHO you have damaged the work of a great many admirable posters and Standardistas with your behaviour.
        That’s the problem in a nutshell.
        Nicely put, ev.

        • travellerev 12.2.1.1

          This is getting scary. Nice one AC.

          • jackal 12.2.1.1.1

            Mountains out of molehills:

            I have now credited the author on the Jackal site. Happy? Perhaps you will now undertake to try and besmirch the credibility of Patrick O’Brien, that way you can chase responsibility for the thousands of unreferenced sites that have used this information.

            marty mars

            Linking to where you sourced it would have sorted it IMO.

            You’re requesting that I undertake to reference a source that was also not the originator. But then chastise Eddie for referencing where he gained the information?

            You are dishonest and untrustworthy as a blogger, writer and poster.

            Rule 2. Become incredulous and indignant.

            You have damaged the work of a great many admirable posters and Standardistas with your behaviour.

            The articles on the Jackal have not damaged The Standard’s credibility in any way. You’re clutching at straws travellerev.

            This is getting scary.

            Your arguments are becoming even more pathetic if anything.

            • travellerev 12.2.1.1.1.1

              Grow up little boy.

              “This is scary” refers to the fact that AC and I, usually at odds with each other, are agreeing with each other about your appalling behaviour.

              I dare say that while Iprent saved the Standard from more damage you on the other hand like a tantrum throwing adolescent keep digging yourself in to a deeper hole.

              • Armchair Critic

                todd, by not making it clear that you are not the source of the information, you did the wrong thing.
                By tossing your toys when your mistake was pointed out, and back with buckets of proof, you perpetuated your mistake.
                If you want to be seen as a credible commentator, you can’t do this sort of thing.
                And your abuse of commenters who have disagreed with you (especially ev) is totally lacking in either substance or style. All I can credit you with is your effort, I suppose you need to practice to be any good at it.

                • jackal

                  I presume you’re attempting to be a comedian? You write this comment a day after I made it clear that I was not the author in comment #4… And then have the nerve to talk about credibility. I suggest you find a new area of employment.

                  • Armchair Critic

                    Comment 4 is as clear as mud. You can’t seriously be claiming that was sufficient – if it was then there would have been no need for the post to be corrected today.
                    Please provide links where I claim to be a comedian.
                    And links to where I claim to be a credible commenter.
                    Hint – you won’t provide any links, because they don’t exist. I’m just an anonymous commenter on a range of blog sites.

    • The Voice of Reason 12.3

      “I just had a gander at The Jackal’s site and I see he is still claiming credit for the article there. Poor form indeed.

      Wrong! There’s “Unknown Author” on the Jackal post. What exactly does that mean do you think? Blogger automatically places “written by the Jackal” on anything posted to the site. That is a normal feature of blog sites.”
       
      Not wrong at all, Todd. At the head of the article is the claim that you wrote it. It doesn’t matter a damn whether that is automatically generated, it’s your blog and you can edit it to tell the truth any time you wish. Including removing the line ‘author unknown’, because people less lazy than yourself have done the work and found the author’s name.

      You are taking credit for someone elses work. I call bullshit on that and hereby nominate you for next week’s Jackal’s Arsehole of the Week.

      • jackal 12.3.1

        Thankfully you have no voting rights for the prestigious Asshole of the Week Award.

        • travellerev 12.3.1.1

          No? Perhaps not but guess what, I second his nomination.

          Not to insult the actual animal you stole the name from but I’m beginning to think that you picked a very apt name.

          • jackal 12.3.1.1.1

            Yes! The Jackal is a reasonably good moniker. I’m turning it into a book soon.

            Your nomination is noted. However my erroneous behaviour would need to be slightly more extreme than not attributing a work with an author to be considered.

            • travellerev 12.3.1.1.1.1

              No J,

              plagiarising someone else’s work on a blog that relies heavily on it’s integrity and then waiting until the big boss corrects your behaviour before you acknowledge it as “erroneous” is pretty much as bad as it gets dude.

              • jackal

                Big boss correct my behaviour? I was not aware that I had named this post on TS. Plagiarism is worse than child abuse, corruption, racism, sexism etc? You have to be kidding me. However it is not plagiarism as the author gives permission to use the work. Try to keep up travellerev.

                • Grow up little boy.

                • weka

                  ” However it is not plagiarism as the author gives permission to use the work.”
                   
                  You really are making a fool of yourself. Go read up on copyright. The author gives permission for use *when properly attributed*. Which is a pretty standard way for people to share their work on the internet. I’m surprised you don’t know this given how you’re all up with how the internet works.

                  Here’s what the author wants (should you decide to care about that)

                  “Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact.”
                   
                  See the last five words of that author statement.

                   
                  Or have a look at the fix that Lynn did on TS’s post above.

                  • weka

                    Something you may not realise is that when you write a blog you are legally publishing all content. If you breach copyright you, as the publisher, are responsible for that. I doubt that the guy whose work you are using is really going to care enough to take legal action (you never know though, and most authors don’t take kindly to their work being used as if it’s been written by someone else), but the issues of honesty and integrity still stand.

                • The Voice of Reason

                  It is plagiarism, Todd. The author specifically allows reuse but requires attribution:
                  “Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney
                  copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
                  (Revised April 2000)
                  Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact.”
                   
                  With ‘author information in tact’ (sic). The failure to acknowledge the real author is what makes it plagiarism. You have ommitted that information and therefore taken credit for someone else’s work. Just because it’s available on the interwebs does not make it OK to steal other peoples work. I happily accept you didn’t realise it was Sweeney’s intellectual property, but you didn’t even say that you had reposted it from the site you found it on, which you should have done anyway.
                   
                  The effect is to make it look like it was all your own work, when you knew it wasn’t. That’s plagiarism, even if it was unintentional, lazy or naive. Making the same mistake almost cost a Radio NZ employee her job a year or so ago. Remember that? She was lifting opinions from the The Guardian to use as topics on a radio show and got snapped.
                   
                  You lifted Sweeney’s piece and even when you knew you were being credited on this site as ‘writing a brilliant analysis’ you didn’t have the gumption to say, ‘tai ho, I didn’t actually write this’.
                   
                  That’s crook, mate, and having a crack at the people who have pointed this out does you no credit at all either. Stop being defensive and get your head around the issue. You have made a mistake; learn from it, move on and make your site even better than it already is with that lesson on board.
                   
                   
                   
                   

                  • jackal

                    Once again for the idiot’s, I have attributed the author in the Jackal’s blog post. Please refer to post #4 on this thread in reference to your other juvenile rantings.

                    • Idiot’s as in of the idiot or idiots as in idiot plural? Jeez… and English is my second language. Grow up little boy.
                       

                    • jackal

                      That’s the third time you’ve said: “Grow up little boy.”

                      Why don’t you fuck off old bitch!

                    • Some kids need telling a lot of times. Grow up little boy. ROFL.

                    • The Voice of Reason

                      No, Todd, you haven’t properly attributed the author.

                      On your blog, you still falsely claim to have written it*, but you have added the real author’s name at the bottom of the page. A better way to do it is an introduction at the top of the page, attributing the author correctly. As Lprent has now done on the Standard.
                       
                      *25 Rules of Disinformation

                      Written by The Jackal at 12:05 PM

                       
                       
                       And as for your abuse of Ev, above, you are really losing it, pal. You are in the wrong, you’ve been called on it and you are resorting to name calling because you clearly don’t have the maturity to accept your own failings. You really do need to grow up.
                       

                    • jackal

                      As previously stated by lprent and myself, the Written by feature is an automatically generated function of the blog site.

                      You’re welcome to start your own blog and post the rules with the disclaimer you propose. I have wasted enough time on your negativity and have better things to do than succumb to your dictates.

                    • weka

                      “As previously stated by lprent and myself, the Written by feature is an automatically generated function of the blog site.”
                       
                      Which is why lprent has gone to the trouble of pointing out manually that the post is not written by you or TS. Duh.
                       
                      ‘Blogspot made me do it.’

                    • jackal

                      Check again. By: THE STANDARD still remains you idiot!

                    • weka

                      I’m not sure that anyone can really be this obtuse so I am assuming you’re just arguing because you don’t know how to do anything else in this situation (like man up and admit you were wrong).
                       
                      Yes, it still does say ‘by The Standard’. That’s because that’s how the blogging format used by TS works when they want to post a guest post. That’s why when the post first appeared it also said ‘written by The Jackel’ (and now ‘published by The Jackel’), so that we would know it wasn’t a post by TS. It’s precisely *because* ‘by The Standard’ is something that lprent or Eddie or whoever can’t override, they’ve gone to the trouble of spelling out at the start of the post that the post isn’t written by TS. Because of your slackness lprent also had to point out very clearly that the post wasn’t written by you at all.
                       
                      You could do the same at your blog, so that it’s clear who has written what. But you haven’t, you’ve changed it at the bottom of the post only after many times people have pointed out that you are plagarising by not attributing the text. You don’t think it’s important that people have thought that someone else’s work was written by you. Time to let your actions speak for themselves methinks.

                  • jackal

                    I place much more importance in the message of the post than who writes it. That is a personal preference to information over personalities. As I have adhered to the terms outlined by the author, I will not be editing the post further. I made the appropriate change when the original author was confirmed.

                    Blogger including Written by the Jackal is exactly the same feature as that utilized on this site where it states: By. THE STANDARD.

                    As for me being obtuse, you should probably edit that word to indifferent. I’m fully aware that I’m often in breech of copyright. Until the respective authors contact me to request that I do not utilize their work, I see no reason in not continuing to provide relevant details to a readership that would not normally be privy to such information. Before you get on your high horse about that, I can assure you that my knowledge of Copyright laws is extensive and any potential prosecution would fail.

                    I have in fact breached copyright in my last post whereby I have copied information written by Facebook. My fear that they will prosecute me for this breach is 0%. The same figure can be applied to your moralistic argument.

                    • weka

                      Good to have that clarified, thanks.
                       
                      As I said originally, for me the copyright was a separate issue. Of more concern to me was that you don’t care that your readers think you have written something that you haven’t, and are happy to post with a level of dishonesty. It’s your blog and you can do what you like, so will let your actions speak for themselves.

                  • jackal

                    Finally somebody noticed that they don’t own the Jackal. You might have also noticed that I’ve now included the author on the post. I think that’s about the forth time I’ve mentioned it.

                    • Ha ha, zey don’t own ze jakal. Noh, I chame a vree zpirit. Zee me slash mu zword. Now you zee me, now you dond.

                      For fuck’s sake, TODD… grow up.

                    • jackal

                      That’s actually slightly clever travellerev. Although your inference that the Jackal is somehow a 17th century German is a bit insane. What are you trying to imply? I can assure you that I am grown up and I have a very large sword 🙂

                      FFS parrot! Stop using Copyrighted material on your pathetic little blog.

  13. PeteG 13

    Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney
    copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
    (Revised April 2000)

    Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information intact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author’s Web site:

    http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

    I don’t think cutting and pasting someone else’s unattributed cut and paste is an excuse for ignoring copyright.

    So far you’ve failed dismally (and getting worse) at Rule 1 – own your mistake and fix it.

  14. weka 14

    It’s pretty easy to write a sentence at the start of your post acknowledging that you didn’t write the post. The fact that you haven’t and that you think this is unimportant is pretty interesting given the content of the cut and paste.
     
    It is also quite straightforward to attribute a piece where the author is unknown. Just link to the place you cut and pasted from. That makes it clear that the work is not your own.
     
    Given that your posts are generally good at linking, I’m surprised that this is such an issue. Weird.

    • Carol 14.1

      Not hard to find. The author is cited on more than one website:

      http://www.whale.to/m/disin.html

      Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney
      copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
      (Revised April 2000)

      Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author’s Web site:

      It seems that due to the site being hacked/hijacked the url is now:
      http://www.proparanoid.net/

      • lprent 14.1.1

        Yeah, that is where I found it as well. I even managed to find a e-mail that doesn’t bounce there as well.

  15. I think we are in the let’s ignore it and hope it goes away phase not. LOL.

  16. Having been subjected to a rather nasty ‘ad hominem’ attempted smear campaign in the comments section of the NBR – I will take great delight in publishing this information far and wide.

    Thanks Jackal for bringing this to my /our attention.

    I see any misunderstanding over who wrote it and giving credit for who wrote it as being secondary to the value of sharing the information which has been written?

    (Although, having now looked at the links provided – the heading of this post is a bit misleading:

    Jackel’s 25 rules of disinformation

    Written By: The Standard – Date published: 1:15 pm, June 1st, 2011 – 49 comments
    Categories: Politics – Tags:
    25 Rules of Disinformation
    Written by The Jackal at 12:05 PM ….”

    I think that it’s always good to give credit where it’s due – if you know to whom the credit should be given.

    Now we do.

    Thanks Ev!

    All good!

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    • Haya woman warrior,
      Cheers!

    • lprent 16.2

      Although, having now looked at the links provided – the heading of this post is a bit misleading:

      Yeah. I just corrected the bits that Jackal quoted once I located the actual source (from comments and some searching for the authors current site). 

      The heading accurately reflects where we got it from.

      The “Written by: THE STANDARD” is part of the site machinery and using the ‘author’ that isn’t one (its real name is “notices and features” – we use it for material authored outside the site that isn’t a guest post). 

      I’m digging around to find the authors e-mail (he seems somewhat cautious about publishing it) to inform him of the violation of copyright (because of his copyright conditions) and asking him what he’d like us to do. In the meantime I have linked to the current full version. 

      I don’t think that it is likely he will be that concerned bearing in mind the number of unattributed and partial copies of this I have seen on the net whilst hunting.

      • travellerev 16.2.1

        Thanks Iprent,

        Sorry to drag your ass back to the blog. I’m sure you have better things to do with your time than to correct the kids when they stray.

    • weka 16.3

      “I see any misunderstanding over who wrote it and giving credit for who wrote it as being secondary to the value of sharing the information which has been written?”
       
      Except we lose any credibility to have an analysis and critique of other people’s disinformation if we can’t manage our own information honestly.
       
      Glad it’s been sorted.

  17. PeteG 17

    A tweak and much better like that. At last. It wasn’t hard, was it. Except it shouldn’t have been necessary for someone else to do it.

    • lprent 17.1

      It waited until I noticed the issue (via e-mail) and had some time to do something about it. The only other person with editor rights who’d spotted it was Eddie and he was on a deadline to head to work if he followed the usual schedule. This is a blog site run by volunteers and it looks like this mostly showed up after my early morning sweep.

      Rather than being the particularly lazy critic that you tend to be, you could have done something productive – like contact me to help get it corrected. Or as I see that ev did, by doing something on my facebook.

      • PeteG 17.1.1

        Why are you just trying to diss me? I didn’t raise it, I wasn’t the only one querying it, I wasn’t to lazy to do some simple research that Jackel was too lazy or didn’t see a need to do…ah, never mind, don’t need an answer to that.

        Eddie commented like they supported the non-attribution (before 7.54am) and was still posting at 8.50am so looked like they had time to address the numerous posts from various posters in that hour – this reinforced the perception (and Eddie’s snark at me) that Eddie thought it was ok for it to stand unattributed.

        I thought you’d done the decent thing (for the blog) and addressed it – and then you seem to resort to abuses and excuses too. Ah well, let’s move on.

  18. jackal 18

    Oh the irony 🙂

  19. Jim Nald 19

    Time to move on.
    Get back on track.
    Thanks for bringing attention to the 25 rules of disinformation.
    Hoping some of the stupid media folks can work out how to use this to hold the government to account.

  20. Tiger Mountain 20

    Rule #1 in contemporary fast & loose politics: There are no rules! The 25 list is more a description of tactics used by local tories and their USA kiss’n cousins.

  21. I have found a video of what the Jackel did after he read all of PeteG et al’s comments, or at least what PeteG expects …
     
    It is here.
     
     
     

  22. jackal 22

    1*. Hear (About 732,000,000 results) no evil**, see no evil, speak no evil: Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it (Poker proverb) — especially if you are an executive [Middle English, to be carried out, from Old French exécutif, from executer, to carry out; see execute.], administrator – ad·min·is·tra·tor n. politician***, official [citation needed], or other public figure. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen (About 450,000,000 results), and you never have to deal with the issues [citation needed].

    *Aryabhata of Kusumapura developed the place-value notation in the 5th century and a century later Brahmagupta introduced the symbol zero. Also attributed to the Latin alphabet, also called the Roman alphabet. Evolved from the western variety of the Greek alphabet called the Cumaean alphabet, which was borrowed and modified by the Etruscans who ruled early Rome, whose alphabet was then adapted and further modified by the ancient Romans to write the Latin language.

    ** Origin unknown. The Bible defines evil as the condition of being alone (the “not good” of Gen. 2:18). In this sense, evil may be seen as that which goes against, or is outside of society, both in terms of values and actions.

    ***Politics (from Greek πολιτικός, “of, for, or relating to citizens”), is a process by which groups of people make collective decisions. The term is generally applied to the art or science of running governmental or state affairs. It also refers to behavior within civil governments. However, politics can be observed in other group interactions, including corporate, academic, and religious institutions.

  23. Folks – the MAIN enemy here is the one (s) who actually use these ‘disinformation’ techniques?

    The discussion/debate on this topic has raised valid issues about copyright, and I’m sure we’ve all learned from it – but how about we consider for a moment the issues (and MAIN) enemies that we have in common, and move on – lessons learned?

    All the best.

    Penny bloody Bright (alias Mother Theresa 😉
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    PS: Any folks out there who live in the Epsom electorate that would like to consider having signs on their fences?

    “$UPERCITY = SUPER RIP OFF!”
    “NO RATE$ INCREASE!”
    “CUT OUT THE CONTRACTORS!”

    (FYI – was at a Grey Power AGM / Public Meeting yesterday where both David Cunliffe and Winston Peters were guest speakers. I raised this issue of savings hundreds of million$ (probably billion$) at central and local government level by cutting out all the private ‘piggy-in-the-middle- consultants/contractors providing core services which used to be provided ‘in-house’ by ‘public servants’ as opposed to the ‘contractocracy’.

    Given that there is no evidence of ‘cost-benefit’ analyses which proves that all this contracting out (PRIVATISATION) of core central and local government services serves the interests of any one apart from those businesses which get the contracts – why is this model being continued?

    Where is the ‘Corporate Welfare Working Group’ reviewing the dependency of all those corporate welfare beneficiaries with their snouts engorging deep at the public trough?

    Winston Peters supports bringing back the ‘Ministry of Works’ and Council ‘Works Departments’.

    There is growing support on these issues………….. : )

    Penny Bright
    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com

    • PeteG 23.1

      PS: Any folks out there who live in the Epsom electorate that would like to consider having signs on their fences?

      “$UPERCITY = SUPER RIP OFF!”
      “NO RATE$ INCREASE!”
      “CUT OUT THE CONTRACTORS!”

      Check out the rules in Auckland, but as long as the signs don’t end in “YWOOD” you may be ok.

      • wtl 23.1.1

        I think the issue in Wellington was more of the SIZE of the sign rather than anything else (well, the size given the content). But you may have your own opinion.

  24. After 93 comments most of which have accused Jackal of all sorts of stuff don’t you think it is time to discuss something important, like the way our country is going to hell in a handbasket?

    • The Voice of Reason 24.1

      I thought we were! This kind of intellectual and personal dishonesty is exactly why we are going to hell in a handcart, Mickey. The Jackal turns out to be as vacuous, dissembling and vapid as most of our business and political leaders. And equally unable to confront a difficult situation without resorting to lies, feeble excuses and unwarranted abuse.

      • jackal 24.1.1

        You’re welcome to point out exactly where I have lied vor? I believe the saying “gave as good as he got” applies. It’s true that I have adopted many of the tactics utilized by Politicians and media that presently pervades the mainstream. Until they choose an even playing field, My blogging conduct will remain much the same as it has done since the Jackal started on Feb 23, 2011. I find your attempts at character assassination rather amusing.

        • travellerev 24.1.1.1

          No J,
          You did the character assassination all by yourself. Stealing another guys writing and presenting it like your own is lying about how you came upon the work.

          No go and write a hundred times: I must not steal other peoples work and present it like my own.

        • The Voice of Reason 24.1.1.2

          Plagiarism is lying, Todd.
           
          Your comment here says it all. If you feel that the appropriation of other peoples work is acceptable on your own blog, that’s your business and no doubt anyone who has read these exchanges will see your future postings as being ripoffs until proven otherwise.
           
          But to knowingly allow the Standard to publish a lie and then not even have the wit to see why that’s a problem nor the grace to put your hand up when you find out exactly why it’s not acceptable doesn’t say much for your cognitive senses.
           
          And, to allow the line “The Jackal has written a brilliant analysis …” to stay on the front page uncorrected … Ego much?

          • jackal 24.1.1.2.1

            I’m turning into a parrot debating with you guys. Please refer to comment #4. It’s not about having an ego. The Standards administrators would have realized that the intro was not correct when reading comment #4.

            Unlike you arrogant lot vor, travellerev, PeteG et al, I’m not in the habit of telling other blog sites authors what to do. I also do not have editing rights on TS. Polly want a cracker?

            You might note that I had 4,445 page views on the Jackal last week. So although your preference for original material is noted, it will not change the Jackal’s present format.

            I disagree that my comment there says it all. Although it does help to clarify my position though.

            • The Voice of Reason 24.1.1.2.1.1

              “It’s not about having an ego.”
               
              “You might note that I had 4,445 page views on the Jackal last week”
               
               

              • jackal

                I was merely highlighting the fact that the Jackal is a successful format. Stating a fact is not being egotistical. You’re requesting that I change that format into what would be a less effective site. All under a pretense that I have somehow misled the public.

                You’re correct in part, I should have searched further for the author in the some 875,000 websites worldwide that have used the material. But to accuse me of perpetuating a lie because another blog site decides to use information attained from the Jackal, is slightly ludicrous! It’s ironic that you RWNJ are failing to use the rules properly, even when given so much material… Speaking of which:

                The Jackel fails those, and defends and justifies his behaviour, all in the context of a post about disinformation.

                It looks like weka answered your question there travellerev. Not too subtle for you is it?

                I don’t give you permission to cut and paste my material btw vor.

                • The Voice of Reason

                  How will I know which is your material, [name deleted]? How will anyone?

    • weka 24.2

      “After 93 comments most of which have accused Jackal of all sorts of stuff don’t you think it is time to discuss something important, like the way our country is going to hell in a handbasket?”
       
      For me too it’s the issue of honesty and integrity. I do agree this has gone on far too long, but feel that the guy should be given enough rope so to speak. If the left wants to have integrity in critquing the right it *has* to have standards of honesty. The Jackel fails those, and defends and justifies his behaviour, all in the context of a post about disinformation.  He’s welcome to do that, but likewise we’re welcome to call him on it and hard. That process is more interesting to me than the content of the original post.

      • PeteG 24.2.1

        The original post of Michael Sweeny’s was good, interesting, but not a lot to discuss about it really, there’s only so many ways you can say how terrible the right are and the left would never do anything like that.

        Actually, from rule 5…

        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.

        …it would appear his comments aren’t leaning one what or the other. I’ve often been called right-wing here (and a leftie elsewhere) – people who don’t like their slogans questioned seem to resort to name calling a bit.

        • travellerev 24.2.1.1

          Oh cool, you edited your comment while I was writing mine.
          Anyway here is what I was going to say. Like you I have been accused of being right wing or left wing depending on the comment or the site I commented on

          Ah, here we go our separate ways PeteG. The left are as bad as the right at disinfo and manipulation and coming from a left wing perspective originally that was a hard one to admit. Their motivation may be different but if they are part of the ruling elite (Such as the democrats in the US) they have as much stake in maintaining the status quo as the right.

          • PeteG 24.2.1.1.1

            Ah, the status quo, that’s a hard one to go against (especially when the status quoers make the rules) unless there’s a major disruption leaving chaos or a vacuum.

            Funny – extreme righties in NZ (not this blog) have been calling for revolution and blood in the streets, and lefters here have more mildly suggested they want revolution too. I have wondered if a moderate revolution would get enough numbers and traction. Most likely not enough incentive for most people.

            The status quo in the US looks particularly impenetrable, far too much money involved. Here it seems to be more power orientated although there’s certainly money in many of the equations as well.

            • travellerev 24.2.1.1.1.1

              Here is a link to the first of a series of articles on the 8 ruling families. (His words not mine) Keep in mind that John Key was very much a Merrill Lynch derivatives specialist who learned his trade at the Bankers trust when he aided in the first abuse of the freshly decriminalised derivatives trade with Patient Zero Andrew Krieger and you get an idea how up shit creek we are
               
               

    • Armchair Critic 24.3

      Most of the 93 comments wouldn’t have been necessary, if todd had been adult enough to admit his mistake.
      We have other threads to discuss that state of the country.
      You went to university, micky, what did you learn about citing the works of others without crediting them? Are ev, TVOR, weka and me talking crap, or is todd?

      • jackal 24.3.1

        It is ev, vor, weka and you Armchair Critic that is talking crap. May I ask if you vote for National? I have referenced the author. My comment at #4 said I was not the author. Still after another 104 comments you fail to comprehend this. Reality seems to be a limited commodity around here atm.

        • PeteG 24.3.1.1

          I presume you mean what “todd” posted at 4:

          todd
          1 June 2011 at 3:58 pm

          The Chinese 50 Center’s seem to be pretty effective as outlined in these rules. I should just clarify that the Jackal didn’t write this and holds no liability if you experience any harm or loss when utilizing

          We can’t all guess that “todd” is “the Jackal/Jackel”, someone even confused you with Eddie.
          I thought “4” was an odd comment and didn’t take it seriously.

          And even if one reads it closely, a vague quip far removed from the actual copy/paste – you can’t be seriously claiming it is anything like an adequate declaration of the source. Are you?.

          If you don’t have editing rights it was your responsibility to get it sorted out properly when the problem was brought to your attention, instead eventually someone else chased up lprent, who then snarked me for not doing anything about it. I don’t care, that’s what he tends to do, I hope he gave you the bollocks you deserved in private.

          • jackal 24.3.1.1.1

            Are you really trying to say you did not know that todd who has posted numerous amounts of links on TS to the Jackal was not the author of that site? I find this hard to believe. I changed to the moniker Jackal as there was an older commentator that used the name Todd who recently started posting on TS again.

            I should just clarify that the Jackal didn’t write this and holds no liability if you experience any harm or loss when utilizing.

            I would hardly say that this is a vague quip PeteG. It is a statement of fact. Your obvious oversight at not reading the thread properly in the first instance has been further compounded by not associating the Jackal’s post in reference to comment #4. What exactly do you think this means?

            jackal 2 June 2011 at 10:02 am – I added my own correction and explanation at post #4

            I bore of such trivialities.

            • weka 24.3.1.1.1.1

              “Are you really trying to say you did not know that todd who has posted numerous amounts of links on TS to the Jackal was not the author of that site?”
               
              Not everyone who reads the post is going to read every comment. And not everyone who read your comment would know that Todd = TJ. It’s easy to miss your comment, not so easy to miss the blaring headline that says it’s your work.
               

            • PeteG 24.3.1.1.1.2

              It is a vague opinion followed by a statement of fact.

              When I saw “The Chinese 50 Center’s seem to be pretty effective as outlined in these rules” I didn’t take much more notice of the paragraph, I still don’t know what you meant by that – there’s no other reference above it.

              To tag a statement of fact onto the end of that in the same paragraph is quite strange. I’m sure many people skim read here and if a post doesn’t attract immediate attention it will often be skipped.

              No, I didn’t know [name deleted] and Jackal were the same, really, maybe you are not as famous yet as you hoped. There are a heap of monikers used here and it can be hard to know who uses multiple identities.

              • jackal

                I guess if you’re not in the know, you wouldn’t understand the reference:

                If you want to effectively attack somebodies credibility, you need to read the material properly. I think I’ve referenced comment #4 around seven times now in this thread. Your skim reading doesn’t seem very effective… Speed reading is actually pretty easy to learn and far more effective.

                I’ve used the moniker todd until yesterday on TS. I’ve also been posting links nearly every day for the last three months on TS. You’ll forgive me if I don’t believe you are genuine about your claims of ignorance. Although who am I to judge.

        • Armchair Critic 24.3.1.2

          A vague quip about having not done your background research is about as useful as a toy from a cheap christmas cracker. Also, all you did there was acknowledge your laziness. A number of commenters have commented on your truculent refusal to actually make good on your mistake. That’s where the issue is, and it took until this afternoon for you to acknowledge you had fixed it. Good on you for fixing it, but the effort that others needed to go to, toget you to do the right thing was shameful.
          Do I vote National – what does that have to do with anything? This is about your lack of intellectual rigour, and your tardiness in acknowledging you fucked up. I’ve commented on my voting record previously. If you are too lazy or stupid to find out, so be it.
          You burnt up a fair bit of credibility with your attacks on Lanthanide about commenting on your blog. But this really is the final straw – I know I don’t need to visit your blog any more, or read re-posts of your “week that was” on TS, because you can’t be trusted.

          • jackal 24.3.1.2.1

            The only shame is in that a number of RWNJ have tried to discredit the Jackal because of their own oversights in not reading the thread properly. I have the feeling that this is more about the content of the Jackal than anything else. Perhaps you’ve been in receipt of an Asshole of the Week Award, it would seem apt.

            I am not privy to your comment about your voting preference. It seems foolish to claim I should be when an excuse has just been given for not seeing comment #4 of this thread that said I was not the author of the work in question.

            I placed Lanthanide in the right plonker category at the time because he/she like you tried to discredit the Jackal by saying my information was not factual. When I proved that information factual he/she continued to attack my credibility.

            Armchair starts of by equating my argument with a Christmas cracker toy, and then has a little tantrum at the end of the post like a three year old. LOL

            • The Voice of Reason 24.3.1.2.1.1

              You know referring to yourself in the third person is creepy, right?

              • jackal

                I referenced the site, it is not a person. There is more than one contributor. You’ll find it difficult to undertake a character assassination without a target. Rule #26.

          • weka 24.3.1.2.2

            The trust issue is important. When I read something, who the author is is important, not for personality issues but because I can find ways of judging the validity of the work (I might be familiar with their other work, or I might have read other people who I trust writing about their work). Being able to place a piece of writing in context (including authorship) is fairly crucial in being able to decide if the work is true or false, good or a piece of crap (or a mixture of those things).
             
            If someone says that honesty about who wrote what is unimportant, how do I know which other pieces are dishonest. And if it’s ok to be dishonest about authorship then why not content?
             

  25. RedLogix 25

    OK .. there really isn’t anything much more constructive to be said here.

    Personally I suggest some breathing through noses for a while…

    • lprent 25.1

      Yes. It does seem to be going around and around. Looks like time to disable comments here as a post that is going nowhere.

      I can’t recall seeing a comment on the content of the post for quite some time, even though that started as being interesting. And the sidetrack looks boring.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts