After coming through yet another week of war on aaj with McAdams over my position and process on Judyth I feel that I might finally have some insights that might sense. In my case, McAdams tries to make use of repeated false statements. He seems to think that by repeating them, they will carry some extra weight, or do something special. My guess is that this repetition is supposed to trigger other posters who *believe* him to dog pile on me. They could, in fact, be 'dog piling cues.' If that were to be the case, it opens the door to the possibility that aaj is supposed to be some sort of 'mind control' forum, where there is one leader, a *credible* person, with a title, who is supposed to lead the others into *correct* thinking. When it comes to the JFK assassination, of course, the *correct* thinking is to support the WCR. When it comes to Judyth, the *correct* thinking is to label her a liar and a fraud.
The purpose of these "dog pile cues" is apparently to indicate to the rest of the pack just who the target is. In this case, it happens to be a woman (the only one currently posting there, and we can imagine why :-0) who happens to be an historian with a different perspective than a poli psy prof…apparently, there can only be on perspective in aaj, and mine is not acceptable…perhaps because it interferes with the experiment, I'm not sure at this point…
aaj posters, in general, seem trained to turn on any dissenter to the WCR and call them a 'kook' or 'insane'. This seems to go with the territory. Then, a poster is only rewarded if they allow McAdams to do their thinking for them. If not, they are put under attack. Not only that, their posts are delayed. Sometimes they fall into a black hole. At other times they will be formally rejected, with an email stating 'why'.
So now I am starting to wonder what, if any, connection there is to the McAdams experiment on aaj to what actually happened during the assassination? If we can start with the axiom that McAdams lies, and that he is pushing an agenda which he knows to be a lie, we might start heading down a road toward the possibility that McAdams is trying to, in effect, create 'man can's' (borrowed from Manchurian Candidate) who will blindly attack whomever he tells them to. If that is the case, we might also ask a corollary question -- is this being done to deflect attention from the possibility that the same thing was done with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963? I'm starting to wonder…:-0
The purpose of these "dog pile cues" is apparently to indicate to the rest of the pack just who the target is. In this case, it happens to be a woman (the only one currently posting there, and we can imagine why :-0) who happens to be an historian with a different perspective than a poli psy prof…apparently, there can only be on perspective in aaj, and mine is not acceptable…perhaps because it interferes with the experiment, I'm not sure at this point…
aaj posters, in general, seem trained to turn on any dissenter to the WCR and call them a 'kook' or 'insane'. This seems to go with the territory. Then, a poster is only rewarded if they allow McAdams to do their thinking for them. If not, they are put under attack. Not only that, their posts are delayed. Sometimes they fall into a black hole. At other times they will be formally rejected, with an email stating 'why'.
So now I am starting to wonder what, if any, connection there is to the McAdams experiment on aaj to what actually happened during the assassination? If we can start with the axiom that McAdams lies, and that he is pushing an agenda which he knows to be a lie, we might start heading down a road toward the possibility that McAdams is trying to, in effect, create 'man can's' (borrowed from Manchurian Candidate) who will blindly attack whomever he tells them to. If that is the case, we might also ask a corollary question -- is this being done to deflect attention from the possibility that the same thing was done with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963? I'm starting to wonder…:-0
