I want to start off by saying that I am aware that both Konami and Crypton Future Media are different companies with different businesses. The original intention behind my previous post was because I wanted it to be an empathy post where we could both share how we aren’t getting great things for 2024 this year, and possibly craft some theories of why this may be the case for one, or both companies if common problem and grounds could be found. That post was for people who love and know about DDR and Vocaloid.
For people who knew only about the DDR side, I apologize for having the post mainly one sided about Vocaloid at the very top. The reason for this was because, as I said in a comment on my previous post, I had been following the problems of the Miku Expo since day 1, and it got to the point where I could list many and possibly all the bad things off the top of my head.
DDR, meanwhile, I literally had 1 statement made, and I gave instructions to search up KAC 11th talk and you could find the video made by Dr. D Gaming on YouTube. I DID KNOW about what the content covered, but, because I had learned about it just yesterday, I would have had to sit down and type details on my post while rewatching the video because it’s not possible to instantly remember a near 30 minute video without repetitive watching for some people.
You can stop reading at this point because down below is the reason why I brought Vocaloid here. If you are still curious anyway, keep reading. I will also include DDR first this time unlike in my last post. It will be from memory without looking at the video again, but it’s better than nothing. Plus, you could always search for the video yourself to verify and get more information.
The reason why is because I was exploring the possibility that, possibly by coincidence, both Konami and Crypton Future Media did not like westerners, and they had pretty much gave their community watered down or no events at all.
For DDR KAC, such problems are:
You must know Japanese in order to be qualified for KAC because the final round will be in Japanese(this was shown and removed on their website as shown in the video. Note:It might have been a previous KAC year, but I’d have to go back and check)
You must pay for your own flight(literally had no problem flying overseas players from previous years)
iamchris4life along with 3 other people had their KAC entries called into question, and could be disqualified if not addressed. I imagine that they had very good and strong reasons, but was still turned down anyways. Konami even had the audacity to say to their face they appreciate and hope they continue to support them.
If you were disqualified from KAC ever, you’re never participating again.(That would pretty much narrow the event down to Japan only)
There was a KAC song that was region locked specifically to Japan
Various things here if I could remember them.
Last one I can remember. While not a problem, it’s an acknowledgment from the DDR champion of this year, HIBKI. They knew the technicalities is a bs reason to keep players outside of Japan from participating as kind of implied if you know the context behind his champion speech(seen in Dr. D Gaming’s 11th KAC DDR video)
For Vocaloid, a lot of things at the Expo went wrong. These things are:
Limited merchandise(100 glow sticks when literal thousands are coming to the concert)
No communication about the LED screen(It’s important to note that fans have pointed out that there is no difference between transparent glass screen and LED screen because it’s fine as long as the screen is integrated with the stage. When that happens, it can cause the same immersive effect that the Vocaloids are truly there and on stage.)
Unable to refund tickets(turned off by the organizer which would be Crypton).
Tickets for the Europe tour being released on the day of the concert, meaning, there was almost no way for Europe fans to know about the transparent glass screen switch before it was too late.
False advertising(the Vocaloids being projected on to the glass screen like years prior before this 10th anniversary)
The no glow stick rule other than the official ones by Crypton(this lead many to believe that the transparent glass screen + projection would be used, implying that it was not going to be an LED screen)
Crypton is not addressing the backlash until the NA tour ends, or possibly, until the Europe tour ends which would be the end of the year. If we assume we are getting a response at all(this could be a debatable problem. I can kind of see why they are waiting until the end of the tour)
As you can see, while these are very different events, and situations, it could come off as them hating westerners. Someone on my previous post had wrote an interesting theory that perhaps for Konami, there are 2 different management/team members. One goes for global expansion because they see potential. The other doesn’t want to take the risk creating mixed messages. Naturally, my reply would be that we had the team members who weren’t going for global expansion this year.
I also kept this insight in mind just in case if Crypton also has more than one management and is facing a similar problem.

Platform(s): Online game (probably Flash)
Genre: Educational / promotional kids game, Third person 2D, Top down
Estimated year of release: Late 2000s, early-to-mid 2010s at the latest
Graphics/art style: "hand-drawn esque" style, very colorful, may have taken place in fall due to brown leaves lying on the ground, character lines appeared in speech bubbles
Notable characters: Several school-aged children and adults of different genders and ethnicities
Notable gameplay mechanics: Gameplay was very simple, using arrow keys and mouse to explore your surrondings and trigger conversations / minigames
Other details: Even though I played the game on a German gaming website, it was in English and advertised an international child welfare organisation. Judging by the blue logo popping up occasionally, I assume it was SOS Children's Village. The MC (you could chose their gender and ethnicity) lived in a housing facility with other children and adult custodians. When you talked to the characters, they urged you to get informed about children in need. I remember five minigames: Picking up apples falling from a tree, raking up leaves, putting paper in a wastebasket, throwing basketballs through a hoop and solving simple jigsaw puzzles that consisted of pictures of real-life children. You could also drive to school via bus.

Where Diplomacy Meets Debate
Are you passionate about global affairs? Do you thrive on discussing international crises and conflicts? Look no further, because you've just stumbled upon the ultimate hub for Model United Nations enthusiasts, specifically geared towards all things United Nations Security Council (UNSC)!
Why Join Us?

1. Stay Informed: Get the latest updates on simulated UNSC sessions from around the globe. Whether it's resolutions, crisis updates, or diplomatic maneuvers, we've got you covered with real-time insights and analysis.
   
2. Engage in Debate: Dive into lively discussions on pressing international issues, just like you would in a real UNSC committee. Whether you're advocating for peacekeeping missions or debating sanctions, this is the place to share your opinions and spar with fellow delegates.
   
3. Learn and Grow: New to Model UN or looking to sharpen your skills? No problem! Our community is here to help you navigate the intricacies of UNSC procedures, diplomatic protocols, and negotiation tactics. Ask questions, seek advice, and learn from experienced delegates.
   
4. Expand Your Network: Connect with MUN enthusiasts from all corners of the globe. Share your experiences, exchange tips, and forge lasting friendships with like-minded individuals who share your passion for international relations.
   
5. Stay Civically Engaged: Stay informed about real-world events and their potential impact on global security. From geopolitical tensions to humanitarian crises, our community provides a platform to discuss the issues that matter most.
   

Community Guidelines:

1. Respectful Discourse: Treat your fellow delegates with courtesy and respect, even when you disagree. Healthy debate is encouraged, but personal attacks, hate speech, and trolling will not be tolerated.
   
2. Stay On Topic: While we welcome discussions on various MUN-related topics, please keep the focus primarily on UNSC simulations and related matters. Off-topic posts may be subject to removal.
   
3. Quality Over Quantity: Avoid low-effort posts and comments. Contribute thoughtfully to discussions and strive to maintain a high standard of discourse within the community.
   
4. No Spamming or Self-Promotion: Refrain from excessive self-promotion or spamming the subreddit with irrelevant content. This includes advertising for personal gain or soliciting for external projects.
   
5. Respect Confidentiality: Do not share confidential information or materials from closed-door MUN sessions. Respect the confidentiality of fellow delegates and the integrity of the simulation.
   

How to Get Involved:

1. Join the Discussion: Dive into ongoing discussions or start your own by posting questions, articles, or insights related to the UNSC and Model UN.
   
2. Participate in Simulations: Stay tuned for announcements about upcoming Model UN simulations, both online and offline. Join fellow members in representing different countries and tackling global challenges as part of a simulated UNSC session.
   
3. Share Resources: Have useful resources, guides, or tips for MUN delegates? Share them with the community to help others improve their skills and knowledge.
   

About SecurityCouncil:
SecurityCouncil is a community dedicated to fostering meaningful discussions and interactions among Model UN enthusiasts, with a particular focus on the United Nations Security Council. Whether you're a seasoned delegate or a newcomer to the world of Model UN, everyone is welcome to join our community and contribute to the conversation.
So what are you waiting for? Join us today and become part of the premier destination for all things related to the UNSC and Model UN!

WILDWOOD, N.J. — Donald Trump on Saturday insulted the prosecutor who has charged him in his ongoing New York criminal trial, speaking at a large rally on the Jersey Shore filled with personal attacks, coarse language and vulgar expressions from the former president and his supporters.
The presumptive Republican nominee called Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg “fat Alvin.” He described New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over his trial, as “highly conflicted.” And he reprised his accusations that both are “doing the bidding” of President Biden, even though there is no evidence they have coordinated with Biden or his administration.
The attacks were the latest show of defiance against judges and prosecutors from a candidate who is facing 88 criminal charges across four indictments. They were part of a flurry of broadsides or baseless claims that Trump and his backers launched during a beachside rally that marked a return to the campaign trail at the end of another week when Trump spent much of his time in a courtroom.
He said he was indicted on “bulls---” prompting some in the crowd to repeat “bulls---” in response. He attacked former New Jersey Republican governor Chris Christie, winking at the audience, “you cannot call him a fat pig.”
As Trump berated the Biden administration, he asked the crowd: “Everything they touch, turns to what?”
“S---!” the crowd responded.
“You can’t use the word s---,” Trump said, to laughs.
At another point, as Trump complained about the news media, one rallygoer turned to the workspace for journalists, yelling: “You guys suck. F--- fake news. Go f--- yourselves.”
Thousands attended the event on a chilly evening, which marked a blue state detour for a candidate who is trying to balance his four-day-a-week trial and running for president with about six months left until the election. The setting was a change of scenery from a typical Trump rally.
But it included many of the same polarizing features of such a gathering that critics have voiced alarm over, including attacks on undocumented immigrants, whom he accused of staging an “invasion” as he vowed to “stop the plunder, rape, slaughter and destruction of the American suburbs, cities and towns.” He sharply derided his domestic critics and opponents, claiming “the enemies from within are more dangerous to me than the enemies on the outside” of the country. He praised the six Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade. And he engaged in meandering asides, including about conversations he has had with celebrities or world leaders.
Trump at one point told the crowd: “Let’s talk about hot dogs, I just had one actually,” before he went on to discuss inflation.
While Trump has spent the past week angrily complaining about his trial, he appeared to bask in the attention from his supporters on Saturday. He spoke surrounded by a roller coaster and Ferris wheel, complimenting his own remarks as a “good speech” and telling the crowd: “Do I feel comfortable with you? I love you.”
North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum (R), who has been discussed as a potential vice-presidential candidate, spoke at the rally before Trump took the stage.
Supporters lined up early in the day, standing in the sand, some wearing red hats and chanting “Let’s go Brandon,” a term used by some on the right to reference a profane attack on Biden. Many sat in white chairs on the sand, while others farther back brought beach blankets.
The stores along the boardwalk in this predominantly White New Jersey shore town advertised Trump merchandise for those walking toward the rally. One woman working at a store on the boardwalk wore a blue sweatshirt that said “TRUMP STRONG” with red, white and blue rhinestone hoops to match. Another attendee wore a white sweatshirt she bought that said: “This Jersey girl loves Trump, get over it.”
Not since George H.W. Bush in 1988 has a Republican presidential candidate won New Jersey, and nonpartisan analysts regard it as a safe hold for Biden this fall. Yet Cape May County, which includes Wildwood, has voted Republican in every presidential race going back to 2000. Trump performed better in Wildwood in 2016, winning the city by 35 points compared with eight in 2020. He predicted Saturday that he would “win the state of New Jersey.”
Trump last held a rally in Wildwood in January 2020, shortly after Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who represents the area, switched from being a Democrat to a Republican. Trump’s message then was similar to what it was Saturday. At that time, the Senate was holding Trump’s first impeachment trial and he said that “Democrats are obsessed with demented hoaxes, crazy witch hunts.”
Trump advisers said they wanted to hold a rally in Wildwood in part because the South Jersey and Jersey Shore media market overlaps with Philadelphia’s, allowing the campaign to reach voters in the battleground state of Pennsylvania. One adviser also noted New Jersey’s proximity to New York, where the campaign is also considering holding a rally.
“That part of the state is very similar demographically to what you would see in other battleground states that have shifted,” said Mike DuHaime, a New Jersey native and longtime Republican strategist.
Some Trump supporters attending the rally said they were paying some attention to the New York trial, but not following it closely. They echoed some of Trump’s claims about the case, which centers on allegations of falsifying business records related to his repayment of attorney Michael Cohen for hush money to an adult-film actress.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-insults-prosecutor-at-jersey-shore-rally-filled-with-vulgar-jabs/ar-BB1mewQj#

We’ll get to free speech in a minute. Let’s start with this:
“You get banned for holding conservative views.”
No. You don’t.
No one ever got banned from any platform for advocating for:
An originalist interpretation of the Constitution
Smaller Government
Chicago School, supply-side economic principles
Deregulation of commerce
Tax less, spend less economic policy
Isolationist foreign policy
Strict Immigration Limits
Stronger State’s Rights, Weaker Federal Control
Strong “tough on crime” legislation
Tough Drug laws
Limited Gun Control
Fetal Personhood.
Seriously. No one.
Guys like Anthony Zarrella, Alex Mann and John Cate freely, unapologetically, and without need to apologize espouse strong conservative ideals (John more on the libertarian side of the coin) right here on Quora every day, and I would put quite a bit of money on myself for the question of which of us has the most BNBR violations on their register, just based on our interactions here over the years.
So where does this repeated regurgitation of the same question over and over come from?
What do people get banned for?
Violating Platform Terms and Conditions.
Primarily Social Media platforms tend to try to limit 2 main things:
Disinformation
Bullying
On the platforms these private companies let you use for free in order to make gobs of good clean capitalist money by bombarding you with targeted advertising based on your demographics and online habits, they ask that you don’t use their platform to spread lies, especially lies that are dangerous to other people’s health or that promote hate and derision towards people or groups of people and that you don’t be an asshole to other users. That’s it.
Now. When EXACTLY did disinformation and bullying become “conservative views?”
I’m serious.
When did “Michelle Obama has a penis” become a “Conservative View?”
When did “All Democrats are Satanist Pedophiles” become a “conservative view?”
When did the latest pile of vaccine-related PRATT become a “conservative view?”
When did “COVID-19 is a hoax aimed at stealing our freedoms” become a “Conservative view?”
When did “the new Civil War is coming, and we’re going to kill you first” become a “conservative view? (Yes, that’s an actual quote from the comments section of one of my answers. Not the worst, just the one that comes to mind.)
I mean, George Will is prematurely rolling over in his grave.
Look, invariably, when someone asks this question (again, and again, and again) they’re not defending their right to talk about conservative politics. They’re whining about the fact that being an asshole got their latest dank “9–11 was an inside job” post moderated.
As far as “muh free speech” goes, there’s only one answer to that.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Do me a favor and find me the part there that says the government should tell private companies what they can or cannot allow on their private property. There’s a term for that you know. It starts with the letter “socialism.”
Wait…I thought “conservative views” held that was a bad thing. Hard to keep up these days.

SEO Meta Description:

Learn about the top 10 mistakes to avoid when managing Google Ads for digital marketing courses in Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Discover expert tips to optimize your campaigns and maximize ROI.

Introduction

In the competitive landscape of digital marketing, running effective Google Ads campaigns for digital marketing courses in Raipur requires strategic planning and execution. This comprehensive guide outlines common mistakes to steer clear of to ensure your advertising efforts yield maximum results. Let’s delve into the nuances of successful Google Ads management for educational institutes in Raipur.

Digital Marketing Course in Raipur: Setting the Foundation

Understanding the Market Demand

Unveiling the market demand for digital marketing courses in Raipur is crucial. By analyzing local demographics and industry trends, you can tailor your Google Ads campaigns to resonate with potential students.

Defining Target Audience Segments

Segmenting your target audience based on demographics, interests, and online behavior empowers you to craft personalized ad messages. Learn how to identify and prioritize audience segments for optimized ad targeting.

Competitive Landscape Analysis

Explore the competitive landscape of digital marketing courses in Raipur. Analyze competitors’ ad strategies to uncover insights and refine your approach for better campaign performance.

Digital Marketing Course Fees in Raipur: Pricing Strategies

Transparent Fee Structure Communication

Clarity in communicating course fees is paramount. Avoid misleading or ambiguous fee structures in your ads to build trust with prospective students.

Incorporating Value Propositions

Highlight unique value propositions in your ads, such as certification, industry expert instructors, or practical training, to justify course fees and attract quality leads.

Implementing Budget Allocation Techniques

Learn effective budget allocation techniques to optimize your Google Ads spend. Allocate budgets based on course popularity and conversion rates to maximize ROI.

Crafting Compelling Ad Copies and Visuals

Crafting Persuasive Ad Copies

Explore techniques for writing compelling ad copies that drive clicks and conversions. Leverage actionable language and compelling offers to entice potential students.

Optimizing Ad Visuals and Extensions

Understand the impact of visuals and ad extensions on campaign performance. Implement best practices for choosing imagery and utilizing extensions like site links and callouts.

Campaign Optimization and Monitoring

Utilizing Conversion Tracking

Learn how to set up conversion tracking to measure campaign effectiveness. Track key metrics like enrollment sign-ups or inquiries to optimize ads for conversions.

A/B Testing Strategies

Implement A/B testing methodologies to refine ad elements. Discover how testing headlines, descriptions, or call-to-action buttons can enhance campaign performance.

Avoiding Common Pitfalls in Google Ads Management

Overlooking Negative Keywords

Explore the importance of negative keyword management to filter out irrelevant traffic. Prevent budget wastage by refining keyword targeting.

Ignoring Ad Placement and Bidding Strategy

Understand the significance of ad placement and bidding strategy. Avoid common bidding mistakes and optimize ad placements for higher visibility.

Ensuring Ad Compliance and Policy Adherence

Adhering to Google Ads Policies

Stay updated with Google Ads policies to ensure compliance. Avoid ad disapprovals and account suspensions by following advertising guidelines.

Monitoring Ad Performance Regularly

Establish a routine for monitoring ad performance metrics. Stay proactive in optimizing campaigns based on real-time data and insights.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• How can I determine the ideal budget for Google Ads?
• What are some effective ad extensions for digital marketing courses?
• How do I optimize landing pages for better conversion rates?
• What are the best practices for writing compelling ad headlines?
• How often should I review and update my Google Ads campaigns?
• Why is it important to include negative keywords in campaigns?

Conclusion

By sidestepping these 10 common mistakes when managing Google Ads for digital marketing courses in Raipur, you can elevate your advertising game and attract more qualified leads. Remember, continuous optimization and strategic insights are key to achieving success in your digital marketing campaigns.

My immediate relative is a prominent politician. I love him so much, but I hate his politics. I have lost friends who don’t understand why I don’t cut the person who I have maintained a close relationship of love, trust, and respect with for 33 years because of his beliefs. I understand where people are coming from, I really do, but until you are in a similar situation it’s hard to understand how complex the family dynamics get. I have been able to maintain my relationship with my relative by setting firm boundaries that we don’t discuss politics… and it works. I avoid news stories about him. In class, work, and social situations where he is brought up (which happens often), I stay silent. I don’t advertise my relationship to him, and very few people know. When he made speeches at universities, students walked out in protest, which was certainly within their rights. My baby sister is graduating university soon, and my relative will be in attendance. No one except the Dean of the school knows of the relation and that he will be in attendance. I’m terrified that there will be an incident that disrupts the ceremony and ruins the experience for my sister, who is the best person I know and has worked so hard to earn her degree. I feel that part of entering the adult world is realizing that you can’t walk away every time you have to encounter someone you disagree with, and you may have to find a way to coexist with such individuals. I perpetually feel both ashamed and frustrated whenever out in public with my relative and am harassed by proxy. I guess am hoping for some reassurance that it’s not unrealistic of me to wish my family, who plays no role in my relative’s politics, can be granted some peace on the rare occasions we are out with my relative in public.

My immediate relative is a prominent politician. I love him so much, but I hate his politics. I have lost friends who don’t understand why I don’t cut the person who I have maintained a close relationship of love, trust, and respect with for 33 years because of his beliefs. I understand where people are coming from, I really do, but until you are in a similar situation it’s hard to understand how complex the family dynamics get. I have been able to maintain my relationship with my relative by setting firm boundaries that we don’t discuss politics… and it works. I avoid news stories about him. In class, work, and social situations where he is brought up (which happens often), I stay silent. I don’t advertise my relationship to him, and very few people know. When he made speeches at universities, students walked out in protest, which was certainly within their rights. My baby sister is graduating university soon, and my relative will be in attendance. No one except the Dean of the school knows of the relation and that he will be in attendance. I’m terrified that there will be an incident that disrupts the ceremony and ruins the experience for my sister, who is the best person I know and has worked so hard to earn her degree. I feel that part of entering the adult world is realizing that you can’t walk away every time you have to encounter someone you disagree with, and you may have to find a way to coexist with such individuals. I perpetually feel both ashamed and frustrated whenever out in public with my relative and am harassed by proxy. I guess am hoping for some reassurance that it’s not unrealistic of me to wish my family, who plays no role in my relative’s politics, can be granted some peace on the rare occasions we are out with my relative in public.

I am an older ape and I have read countless hours of DD since the sneeze. One of the biggest achievements of this sub was to educate people on techniques being used to subvert us and our stock.
A main piece is this:
https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/s/a6Ju1N8XpM by another ape
Enjoy the read :) I don’t take any credit for this work.
You may remember that a few days back, u/[redacted] put up this post about shills infiltrating /BIZ/ https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/mscsb5/putting_shills_on_blast_a_concerned_biznessman/
In that post, there was a HUGE image on:
SUPPOSED**methods used by banks and the hedgefunds to dismantle online communities
I had trouble reading that image (definitely NOT phone or text-to-speech friendly), and tried to find the original text version. It turns out that it can be found here: https://pastebin.com/irj4Fyd5. I copy-pasta it here for your convenience, and included some markup to make it easier to read. I take no credit for this work.
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
COINTELPRO Techniques for dilution, misdirection and control of a internet forum..
There are several techniques for the control and manipulation of a internet forum no matter what, or who is on it. We will go over each technique and demonstrate that only a minimal number of operatives can be used to eventually and effectively gain a control of a 'uncontrolled forum.'
Technique #1 - 'FORUM SLIDING'
If a very sensitive posting of a critical nature has been posted on a forum - it can be quickly removed from public view by 'forum sliding.' In this technique a number of unrelated posts are quietly prepositioned on the forum and allowed to 'age.' Each of these misdirectional forum postings can then be called upon at will to trigger a 'forum slide.' The second requirement is that several fake accounts exist, which can be called upon, to ensure that this technique is not exposed to the public. To trigger a 'forum slide' and 'flush' the critical post out of public view it is simply a matter of logging into each account both real and fake and then 'replying' to prepositined postings with a simple 1 or 2 line comment. This brings the unrelated postings to the top of the forum list, and the critical posting 'slides' down the front page, and quickly out of public view. Although it is difficult or impossible to censor the posting it is now lost in a sea of unrelated and unuseful postings. By this means it becomes effective to keep the readers of the forum reading unrelated and non-issue items.
Technique #2 - 'CONSENSUS CRACKING'
A second highly effective technique (which you can see in operation all the time at www.abovetopsecret.com) is 'consensus cracking.' To develop a consensus crack, the following technique is used. Under the guise of a fake account a posting is made which looks legitimate and is towards the truth is made - but the critical point is that it has a VERY WEAK PREMISE without substantive proof to back the posting. Once this is done then under alternative fake accounts a very strong position in your favour is slowly introduced over the life of the posting. It is IMPERATIVE that both sides are initially presented, so the uninformed reader cannot determine which side is the truth. As postings and replies are made the stronger 'evidence' or disinformation in your favour is slowly 'seeded in.' Thus the uninformed reader will most like develop the same position as you, and if their position is against you their opposition to your posting will be most likely dropped. However in some cases where the forum members are highly educated and can counter your disinformation with real facts and linked postings, you can then 'abort' the consensus cracking by initiating a 'forum slide.'
Technique #3 - 'TOPIC DILUTION'
Topic dilution is not only effective in forum sliding it is also very useful in keeping the forum readers on unrelated and non-productive issues. This is a critical and useful technique to cause a 'RESOURCE BURN.' By implementing continual and non-related postings that distract and disrupt (trolling ) the forum readers they are more effectively stopped from anything of any real productivity. If the intensity of gradual dilution is intense enough, the readers will effectively stop researching and simply slip into a 'gossip mode.' In this state they can be more easily misdirected away from facts towards uninformed conjecture and opinion. The less informed they are the more effective and easy it becomes to control the entire group in the direction that you would desire the group to go in. It must be stressed that a proper assessment of the psychological capabilities and levels of education is first determined of the group to determine at what level to 'drive in the wedge.' By being too far off topic too quickly it may trigger censorship by a forum moderator.
Technique #4 - 'INFORMATION COLLECTION'
Information collection is also a very effective method to determine the psychological level of the forum members, and to gather intelligence that can be used against them. In this technique in a light and positive environment a 'show you mine so me yours' posting is initiated. From the number of replies and the answers that are provided much statistical information can be gathered. An example is to post your 'favourite weapon' and then encourage other members of the forum to showcase what they have. In this matter it can be determined by reverse proration what percentage of the forum community owns a firearm, and or a illegal weapon. This same method can be used by posing as one of the form members and posting your favourite 'technique of operation.' From the replies various methods that the group utilizes can be studied and effective methods developed to stop them from their activities.
Technique #5 - 'ANGER TROLLING'
Statistically, there is always a percentage of the forum posters who are more inclined to violence. In order to determine who these individuals are, it is a requirement to present a image to the forum to deliberately incite a strong psychological reaction. From this the most violent in the group can be effectively singled out for reverse IP location and possibly local enforcement tracking. To accomplish this only requires posting a link to a video depicting a local police officer massively abusing his power against a very innocent individual. Statistically of the million or so police officers in America there is always one or two being caught abusing there powers and the taping of the activity can be then used for intelligence gathering purposes - without the requirement to 'stage' a fake abuse video. This method is extremely effective, and the more so the more abusive the video can be made to look. Sometimes it is useful to 'lead' the forum by replying to your own posting with your own statement of violent intent, and that you 'do not care what the authorities think!!' inflammation. By doing this and showing no fear it may be more effective in getting the more silent and self-disciplined violent intent members of the forum to slip and post their real intentions. This can be used later in a court of law during prosecution.
Technique #6 - 'GAINING FULL CONTROL'
It is important to also be harvesting and continually maneuvering for a forum moderator position. Once this position is obtained, the forum can then be effectively and quietly controlled by deleting unfavourable postings - and one can eventually steer the forum into complete failure and lack of interest by the general public. This is the 'ultimate victory' as the forum is no longer participated with by the general public and no longer useful in maintaining their freedoms. Depending on the level of control you can obtain, you can deliberately steer a forum into defeat by censoring postings, deleting memberships, flooding, and or accidentally taking the forum offline. By this method the forum can be quickly killed. However it is not always in the interest to kill a forum as it can be converted into a 'honey pot' gathering center to collect and misdirect newcomers and from this point be completely used for your control for your agenda purposes.
CONCLUSION
Remember these techniques are only effective if the forum participants DO NOT KNOW ABOUT THEM. Once they are aware of these techniques the operation can completely fail, and the forum can become uncontrolled. At this point other avenues must be considered such as initiating a false legal precidence to simply have the forum shut down and taken offline. This is not desirable as it then leaves the enforcement agencies unable to track the percentage of those in the population who always resist attempts for control against them. Many other techniques can be utilized and developed by the individual and as you develop further techniques of infiltration and control it is imperative to share then with HQ.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players, or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure, news anchor, etc. 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 show the topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
   
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' 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/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 '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 be 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 'minutia' 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 except with denials 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 -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with - a kind of investment for the future should the matter not be so easily contained.) 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 then 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 candor 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, and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' 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 lose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
    
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which 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 with issues qualifying for rule 10.
    
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.
    
16. Vanish 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, it may be required that 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 favorable verdict is achieved, the matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
    
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 favorably. 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 destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging their health.
    
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.
    

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. Should a commentator become argumentative with any success, the focus will shift to include the commentator as well.
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial.
Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal. But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the 'image' and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It's just a job, and they often seem unable to 'act their role in character' as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo.
With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.
I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author. For instance, one such player claimed to be a Navy pilot, but blamed his poor communicating skills (spelling, grammar, incoherent style) on having only a grade-school education. I'm not aware of too many Navy pilots who don't have a college degree. Another claimed no knowledge of a particular topic/situation but later claimed first-hand knowledge of it.
8) Time Constant. Recently discovered, with respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
a) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
b) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR - there will usually be a minimum of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
c) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay - the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
How to Spot a Spy (Cointelpro Agent)
One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?
1) The message doesn't get out.
2) A lot of time is wasted
3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged
4) Nothing good is accomplished.
FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.
Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.
Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.
The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.
This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.
It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.
In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:
"You're dividing the movement."
[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]
This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.
The agent will tell the activist:
"You're a leader!"
This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.
This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.
Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.
The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.
The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.
The activist's "felt quality of perfection" [self-concept] is enhanced, and a strong empathic bond is developed with the agent through his/her imitation and simulation of the victim's own narcissistic investments. [self-concepts] That is, if the activist knows, deep inside, their own dedication to the cause, they will project that onto the agent who is "mirroring" them.
The activist will be deluded into thinking that the agent shares this feeling of identification and bonding. In an activist/social movement setting, the adversarial roles that activists naturally play vis a vis the establishment/government, fosters ongoing processes of intrapsychic splitting so that "twinship alliances" between activist and agent may render whole sectors or reality testing unavailable to the activist. They literally "lose touch with reality."
Activists who deny their own narcissistic investments [do not have a good idea of their own self-concepts and that they ARE concepts] and consciously perceive themselves (accurately, as it were) to be "helpers" endowed with a special amount of altruism are exceedingly vulnerable to the affective (emotional) simulation of the accomplished agent.
Empathy is fostered in the activist through the expression of quite visible affects. The presentation of tearfulness, sadness, longing, fear, remorse, and guilt, may induce in the helper-oriented activist a strong sense of compassion, while unconsciously enhancing the activist's narcissistic investment in self as the embodiment of goodness.
The agent's expresssion of such simulated affects may be quite compelling to the observer and difficult to distinguish from deep emotion.
It can usually be identified by two events, however:
First, the activist who has analyzed his/her own narcissistic roots and is aware of his/her own potential for being "emotionally hooked," will be able to remain cool and unaffected by such emotional outpourings by the agent.
As a result of this unaffected, cool, attitude, the Second event will occur: The agent will recompensate much too quickly following such an affective expression leaving the activist with the impression that "the play has ended, the curtain has fallen," and the imposture, for the moment, has finished. The agent will then move quickly to another activist/victim.
The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.
A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.
Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:
1) To disrupt the agenda
2) To side-track the discussion
3) To interrupt repeatedly
4) To feign ignorance
5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.
Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.
Saboteurs
Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....
1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites)
2) Print flyers in English only.
3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares.
4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support
5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing.
6) Confuse issues.
7) Make the wrong demands.
8) Compromise the goal.
9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.
Provocateurs
1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement.
2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble.
3) Encourage militancy.
4) Want to taunt the authorities.
5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values.
6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent.
7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.
Informants
1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything.
2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data).
3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend.
4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.
Recruiting
Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.
Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.
Surveillance
ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.
At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!
Scare Tactics
They use them.
Such tactics include slander, defamation, threats, getting close to disaffected or minimally committed fellow activists to persuade them (via psychological tactics described above) to turn against the movement and give false testimony against their former compatriots. They will plant illegal substances on the activist and set up an arrest; they will plant false information and set up "exposure," they will send incriminating letters [emails] in the name of the activist; and more; they will do whatever society will allow.
This booklet in no way covers all the ways agents use to sabotage the lives of sincere an dedicated activists.
If an agent is "exposed," he or she will be transferred or replaced.
COINTELPRO is still in operation today under a different code name. It is no longer placed on paper where it can be discovered through the freedom of information act.
The FBI counterintelligence program's stated purpose: To expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, and otherwise neutralize individuals who the FBI categorize as opposed to the National Interests. "National Security" means the FBI's security from the people ever finding out the vicious things it does in violation of people's civil liberties.
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, compliant press and a mere token opposition party.

1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
   
2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.
   
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")
   
4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
   
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.
   
6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).
   
7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
   
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
   
9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.
   
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
    
11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.
    
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?
    
13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.
    
14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.
    
15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.
    
16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.
    
17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don t the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.
    

Perhaps a passer-by has a good idea. It is a long story, so don’t be bothered unless you have a little extra time today, or want some entertainment or perhaps enlightenment.
Introduction. Have you ever had to deal with an auto insurance company after an accident? Hopefully, your experience was a good one. But, from what I read, some of that here, but mostly elsewhere, it may not have been. Please read carefully. Yes, it is long (1/2 of the max that Reddit allows), but facts are facts and you can’t understand without them. The plot thickens and the direction changes, as the story is told, just as in reality it did for me. Do I need advice? Perhaps, with the question being like the TV Show where John Quiñones asks- “What Would You Do?” If you’ve had a similar experience, tell me about it.
In this situation, the bottom line is that Allstate’s own concerns, policies and procedures, in dealing with my loss, took precedence over the actual loss and my being “made whole”. Simply put: After the accident, Allstate created more loss, and I can do nothing about it. Or can I? What would you do?
So, in Dec. of 2022, I was picking my wife up from work in a small town in PA. I was stopped at a red light waiting for it to change, and was swiftly hit from behind by “man in van with dog as passenger”. WHACK!!! My car was forced into the one in front of me, despite my foot being on the brake, causing the engine to stop, my hood to unlock and bend upwards, the head light and grill to become broken and dislodged, steam to rise from the open hood and something dribbled out underneath. I was stunned. It looked like a real mess. “My car”, was now the one in the middle of the road, smashed and disabled, holding up all the traffic. The car was towed away and in two days I was told by Allstate, whom I did trust at first, that my car was totaled. Certainly, Allstate is an expert at this stuff, right? (My first accident in 40 years.) This began my month long (a little more actually), journey into hell, which no one ever paid for, but me. The car damage was eventually paid, the journey to hell was not. No one was physically hurt, seriously, so that was good. I didn’t get the dog’s opinion.
Bad Hands and Mayhem at Allstate; Was I Abused? This was an unfolding set of unlikely circumstances (one would think), which are best seen and understood in hindsight. At very first, there was an immediate rush to judgment where the adjuster, who had not examined the car, rattled off things that he believed had probably been damaged with my car, and then concluded by guessing, the cost of repair would be too much and a “verbal totaling” of the car was given, or “deemed” as it is called in the industry. He was an expert, so I did not question his conclusion. Damn, I thought. 64,000 miles and I had just bought the car last year after an extensive search. I was immediately given a settlement offer which seemed low, such that I did question and decline it. I needed to research again, and find what records I had, of the value. I had done that not long ago. The adjuster seemed surprised if not annoyed that I did not take his offer. His job was not done.
The car would be towed again to a free location for storage, as the adjuster explained. The cost of leaving the car where it was, was too expensive. He did not disclose, however, that the car would be towed far away (60 miles), to an auto yard which was contracted with Allstate to accept totaled vehicles for auction, dismantling and scrapping, otherwise known as “salvage”.
During these initial stages, unknown by me, there was a lie and sophisticated misleading, in writing, by the Allstate adjuster assigned to my case. After I suggested the value of my car to be higher than Allstate thought, and backing my claim with data, he gave me the following written statement a few days later regarding auto valuations by insurance companies for Pennsylvania: “The process of… vehicle valuation is set forth by the insurance department which specifies a market area of 100 mile radius from your garaging ZIP code. "I have no intention of disregarding a clear mandate from the governmental agency that oversees my license” (12/22). The lie is pretty severe as it is a “blanket” statement, putting up a wall and signaling an end to discussion regarding the distance Allstate uses to establish car values (from comparable transactions with similar cars). However, some people buy cars online and you see it also through eBay and TV advertisements (Carfax, Carvana, Kenan Thompson [Autotrader] etc.). And there certainly are reputable dealers beyond 100 miles of me. Other people I am sure (like me), own cars which are not currently available for sale within 100 miles from where they live. What do they do? So, then comparisons are made with other cars not identical, but that are “similar”, based on someone else’ opinion, and I must accept that???.
I have owned 4 similar station wagons in the past 20 years. My 2nd wagon was from Florida; my “totaled” wagon had recently been purchased in NJ, I am in Pennsylvania, more than 100 miles away from both.
In addition, in the same document, the adjuster wrote that Allstate uses only one approved source for obtaining car values: “…there are only a limited number of sources from which insurers may obtain values for vehicles deemed a total loss. CCC is an approved vendor and the vendor we use exclusively for values.” I took this to mean that there were no other places to obtain values, other than the CCC source he was using, and such a limited use of resource was legal, and he and Allstate could not be challenged. End of argument, without an expensive attorney or solo appearance in front of a judge. Too bad for me. Questioning the adjuster would get me nowhere.
This unfolding set of events was “done to me”, therefore I am suspecting it is done to others, routinely. Or, Allstate does not supervise their adjusters or provide oversight and alternatives if needed when an adjuster goes rogue, which is just as bad. Either way it is a systemic problem convenient to Allstate for limiting payouts. “It”, Allstate’s “oversight and valuation process”, happened to me, and the next four weeks were worse than the accident itself.
A Bit of “Backstory”. I began suffering from Multiple Sclerosis (MS) in 1988. With MS, you have to do what you can do. Things change, maybe you can do what you have to, maybe you can no longer get it done. You didn’t bargain for it. You adjust as best you can, or give up. MS doesn’t give up. Some people do better than others, for known and unknown reasons. Motivation helps but is often not enough.

1. Due to difficulty with my leg, having a car lower to the ground is preferable to one where I have to step up into the auto (like an SUV).
2. A car which loads through the back (like an SUV, but lower) is very helpful as well. As I stated above, the last four cars I have owned since 2004 are Ford Station Wagons (1997, 2000, 2001 and 2002; two from PA, one NJ, one Florida). There is a niche of available used wagons with low miles primarily from estates. They are good condition and affordable, versus a used late model $25,000+ SUV with higher mileage and related high cost, maintenance and insurance.
3. Being economical is one thing I can do.
4. To supplement my limited disability income, I deal in used and “collectible” merchandise, requiring me to load boxes occasionally, to my lower level car. The back hatch found on these wagons I have owned, is a necessity for what I do. They are not comparable to sedans, although sedan values were the valuations I was given, and used to create the insurance estimate. Compared to modern SUVs, Ford wagons with low miles, circa 2000 - 2004, are a more economical and functional decision, given the available “niche” and my handicap. So it’s not that an uncle died or something, and I got this old junky wagon from him. It’s a vehicle I intentionally hunted for, to purchase for very good reasons. I needed a replacement value for that and nothing else.

Out of Options to Get a Fair Deal? I knew that a replacement for my car was possible but may require a hunt again (I had already done it four times). Obtaining the needed valuation looked unlikely however, and I’d have to pay perhaps double ($7,000-8,000+?) what Allstate would pay me for my totaled car. It was clear the adjuster was not going to hear anything further from me. The adjuster did not care, and in addition, gave me a value based on Ford sedans, not Ford wagons (which haven’t been built since about 2005). These wagons, according to my research, are worth significantly more than sedans. Two out of three of the comparables the adjuster gave me had 150,000 miles, with smaller engines. For a 2002 car, 150,000 miles is next to “junk status”. My car had 64,000 miles when hit and was a station wagon with a more powerful Duratec engine. These are big differences. He would not change his valuation, claiming his actions were mandated by law (as stated above) and that his source of valuation was the only one that would be used. I felt tied down and helpless, forced to take an offer I knew was wrong, from a guy whose job it apparently was, to do exactly what he was doing to me (cause mayhem), rather than helping me get back to where I had been (good hands). Within a little more than a week, I no longer trusted him, a man I was now forced to depend on. I felt abused. It was tortuous. In hindsight, it is clear he was hoping I was desperate for a replacement car and therefore motivated to accept the “low-ball” offer he had given me.
It Was Not True. I later checked with the PA Insurance Department specifically on the matter, and indeed, his claims (cited above in bold) were specifically not true. Via email the Department stated: “The 100 miles is an industry practice and not a law” (6/12/23). In addition, I earlier read 31 Pa. Code § 62.3e (a code for doing appraisals) and learned that in addition to the CCC “source” for valuations he had previously described, there were two other independent valuation “Methods” called Actual Cost and Dealer Quotation “methods”, which he was free to use but didn’t tell me about. One has to learn and know the code in order to differentiate the meanings between “source” and “method”. Beyond these two facts, in addition, his consideration of wagons being the same as sedans was inaccurate and did not follow valuation rules set in the code. The code actually tells him that since my car, a station wagon, was not listed with CCC (which it wasn’t) and was no longer manufactured, he must use a different valuation “Method” than his CCC “Source” method. He did not.
For people who want a good Taurus wagon, low miles, 2000-2004, the average price is considerably more than a sedan with the same mileage. That price must be paid. That’s my experience backed by data. If one is looking for a good condition wagon, they are simply not going to buy a sedan, as to them a sedan is worth nothing. If they are looking for a sedan, they will have no interest in a wagon. The two cars are not comparable or interchangeable. They serve two different markets willing to pay different values. About ten to twenty percent of Tauruses built were wagons, making them today much harder to find.
And the Car was Not Totaled! (Here We Go! Part two) But the complaint I make is not about physical damages “not being paid”, or “not being paid enough” (although that did happen). Instead it is about the consequences of being lied to and misled by someone you trust, all while being forced to give up control of one’s car for almost a month, during which time I initially accepted Allsate’s story that my car was totaled, and nothing was done to repair it, and it was essentially inaccessible at a salvage yard, and I almost lost it. If not for my own actions against the will of the adjuster, I would have lost my car. I was forced to act in a manner against the controlling party’s will. This, I believe, becomes what is called a “Tort”, done by Allstate to me. “Do what we say or you will be screwed”. It has nothing to do with the person who hit me and my settlement with him. I had to become aware of being abused. I had to see I was mislead and lied to, in order to change my orientation to the matter. Not easy. It was very emotionally exhausting and required much time and attention. Giving up was not an option or I would have lost my car. It was torture.
After questioning the car’s removal to the salvage yard, to my surprise Allstate returned the car to my shop. It was repaired to be safe and passed its yearly inspection (conveniently due). I was driving again in my good car by January 20, 2023. I was paid $3,521.03 on about August 1, 2023 by Allstate for damages to my car. I had to “step around” the adjuster and threaten a law suit directly to Allstate. The payment eliminated the liability the other driver had. But it made clear the settlement was for driver’s liability, and several prior communications trying to forge a settlement always indicated that my right to sue Allstate would not be limited by a settlement. This came after several disclosures over the months by the adjuster, that the car had been “deemed” a total loss and therefore no collision repairs could be paid or approved by Allstate. It was interesting that he described the matter as if some other place or person had “deemed” it, as if he had nothing to do with that decision and it was just the way it had ended up. The car had been “deemed” a total loss, and therefore, such decision could not be changed by he or Allstate. But he was the source of the “deeming”!. The car was restored to a safe, drivable, good looking state for less than $400! Laughable now, but the entire episode was a psychological and emotional wreck and nightmare, done to me by Allstate.
But Now the Car is Listed as Having Been Totaled. Indeed, checking online with VINCheck, a database provided free to the public by The National Insurance Crime Bureau, my car is listed as a salvage vehicle. You only get “salvage” after “total”. Someone reported the car to them as a salvaged car, and it wasn’t me. After notifying VINCheck that my car had not been assigned or salvaged (which could only be done in a signed statement by me), and had just passed inspection, I received no reply. Currently, nothing has changed. I suspect this misinformation has also spread to other VIN websites used to check car histories. Why should I be required to pay money to check additional VIN websites, or spend my time arguing with someone on this, or have to explain in the future to any interested party, why the car is listed as salvage but was never “rebuilt”, and then argue a depreciated price? A rebuilt salvage vehicle loses 20-40% of its pre-accident value. A salvage vehicle can’t be registered. I am told by PA DMV that unless I apply for a salvage title, the title will not become a salvage title. Earlier, Allstate reused to make payment unless I signed a salvage statement that the car was totaled, which would have begun a detailed costly rebuild process and a deduction in settlement amount, if I were to keep the car and seek to register it again..
I Was Abused. It was only because of my finally doubting the adjuster and persisting with Allstate, that I got my car back and repaired it, and was compensated an amount for the damage to my car. I was abused by Allstate Insurance. I am not wanting to sue the driver for his conduct, my attention is on Allstate for theirs. There are “bad hands” over there (not “good”), and “mayhem” starts at Allstate (at least it did for me). They are one of the largest insurers in The US, and their advertisements and actions should match. Allstate creates expectations of service and treatment based on their widespread long standing advertisements. They never advertise that you’d have to “submit” to their ill will in order to be in good hands and to avoid mayhem. That sounds like an abusive relationship to me. Give up something in order not to get harmed. You need not be an Allstate client for this to happen. Allstate merely provides insurance to a bad driver, waits for an accident to occur, and then creates mayhem for the injured party in order to reduce payout.
Conflict of Interest. Pa. Code § 62.3f (the code for doing appraisals) specifically states that appraisers “Not have a conflict of interest in the making of an appraisal.” If the appraiser in this case was influenced by requirements of his job to accept an inaccurate “Source appraisal” from CCC, or in any other way influenced to reduce or limit the appraisal as a result of job requirements and other pressures to perform, the adjuster did not act independently but yielded to a conflict of interest. If the use of an appraiser is in the financial interest of Allstate at the expense of an injured party’s interests, it is a conflict. If Allstate uses appraisers to make it appear appraisals will be fair and accurate but they know otherwise, then it appears to be a fraud. Finally, part f of the code concludes “This chapter and the act, and this section in particular, shall be strictly interpreted to protect the interest of the consumer and place the burden upon the appraiser to eliminate any conflict of interest in the making of an appraisal.” Allstate then, in my opinion, must demonstrate a particular level of autonomy given to appraisers to authorize appraisals. Any evaluative process by Allstate on the appraiser’s job performance that rewards him for lowering appraisals certainly seems a violation of this code. In my case here, we even had an appraiser falsely claim his hands were tied by the law, in order to limit his appraisal. My appraiser had the opportunity to correct matters, eliminate conflicts, and make me whole from the start, but he did not. I had to make myself whole.
Final Takeaway. In hindsight, it appears a well thought and established routine of persuasion and misinformation, in order to achieve a quicker and reduced settlement, was done to me by Allstate. It resulted in the perceived loss of my car, and then the loss of my car for a month, with a continuous sense of urgency, severe aggravation, manipulation, helplessness and abuse. There was never a concern for establishing truth, loss and expense, and paying it. Instead there was inclusion of misinformation and ignorance of other. The time I spent in the first month of this matter has to be at least 40 hours. I lost sales on eBay, missed auctions. My sleep was totally broken. They took my car, refused to replace it, and lied about it. It was about all I could deal with for that month. Accept our interpretation of your loss, or suffer the consequences, which we are trying to control. It literally was torture: “the practice of inflicting suffering on someone in order to force them to do something” is the dictionary definition. How much is a month of that worth?
The PA General Assembly Title 18 § 4117 warns: “Any person who knowingly and with intent to defraud any insurance company or other person files an application for insurance or statement of claim containing any materially false information or conceals for the purpose of misleading, information concerning any fact material thereto commits a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime and subjects such person to criminal and civil penalties”. There is nothing in that law which places the shoe on the other foot and is directed at the adjuster or insurance company, if they mislead or defraud. I doubt, that such absence in Title 4117 allows adjusters or insurance companies freedom to do whatever they please to a random individual with no consequence.
So finally, again, the question is “What would you do?” The statute of limitations, I believe, is two years. That will bring me to December. And to repeat, the harm done to me that I have been describing, was done by Allstate to me. The driver has been released.
Thanks for reading.

This subreddit is a community dedicated to system administrators and IT professionals. To ensure a productive and respectful environment, we have established the following terms of use. By participating in this community, you agree to abide by these guidelines:

1. Be Respectful: Treat fellow redditors with courtesy and respect. Personal attacks, harassment, hate speech, or discriminatory remarks based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, disability, or sexual orientation will not be tolerated.
2. Stay On Topic: Keep discussions relevant to system administration, IT infrastructure, networking, cybersecurity, and related topics. Off-topic posts may be removed at the discretion of the moderators.
3. No Spam or Self-Promotion: Do not post spam, advertisements, or self-promotional content unless it is directly relevant to the community and provides value to members.
4. No Low-Effort Posts: Avoid low-effort or low-quality posts, including memes, image macros, and unrelated content. Posts should encourage meaningful discussions or share valuable information.
5. Respect Privacy: Do not share personal or confidential information about individuals or organizations without consent.
6. Follow Reddit Rules: Adhere to Reddit's site-wide rules and policies at all times.
7. Use Flairs Appropriately: When posting, use appropriate flairs to categorize your content (e.g., Discussion, Question, News) for easier navigation and organization.
8. Moderator Discretion: Moderators reserve the right to remove any content or ban users who violate these terms of use or disrupt the community's integrity.
9. Report Violations: If you encounter behavior that violates these terms or Reddit's rules, please report it to the moderators for review.

By participating in SysAdminss, you acknowledge that you have read and understood these terms of use. Let's work together to maintain a helpful and welcoming community for all system administrators and IT enthusiasts!

To get a 1-4-0 on the rhetorical analysis essay, you’ll need to:

• Identify a shift in the passage, where the author switches from doing one thing to another
• Identify the primary way the author builds the argument in the first part of the passage
• Identify the primary way the author builds the argument in the second part of the passage
• Use lots of evidence to support your analysis

This is pretty abstract, so here’s an example from the 2023 AP Lang exam (see question 2): https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/media/pdf/ap23-frq-english-language-set-1.pdf
Notice that in the first three paragraphs, Michelle Obama is basically addressing all the different groups of people who are listening to her speech, and emphasizing that they are all American. However, at line 35, she switches to calling on her listeners to defend their rights by taking advantage of their education.
So our thesis statement can be: “By first acknowledging the diversity of Americans who are listening to her speech in order to emphasize their collective right to being proud Americans, and by crafting a call to action, Michelle Obama urges her listeners to take advantage of their education in order to defend their rights.”
The topic sentence for our first paragraph can be: “Obama addresses the many diverse groups of Americans in her audience in order to underscore the importance of the freedoms and rights they have.” We’d support that claim with 3 quotes from her speech.
The topic sentence for our second paragraph could be: “After acknowledging the freedom that allows the diversity of her audience, Obama crafts a call to action in order to encourage her listeners to take advantage of their education and defend their rights.” We’d then use 3 more quotes to support that claim.
With an introduction and a conclusion, that would be a solid 1-4-0 essay, enough to get you a 5 on the AP exam. But what if you wanted the elusive sophistication point — and a perfect 1-4-1 on the rhetorical analysis essay?
The AP rubric lists three ways you can earn the sophistication point:

1. “Explaining the significance or relevance of the writer’s rhetorical choices (given the rhetorical situation).”
2. “Explaining a purpose or function of the passage’s complexities or tensions.”
3. “Employing a style that is consistently vivid and persuasive.”

If you’re a skilled writer, a vivid and persuasive writing style is achievable — just use fancy words and complex sentence structures, and College Board will love you.
If that’s not you, the other methods aren’t too hard.
The rhetorical situation consists of:

• the author (Michelle Obama, First Lady)
• the audience (American students)
• the purpose (to convince American students to use their education to defend their rights)
• the exigence - the event that “sparked” the creation of the text (an event honoring school counselors)
• the context - think: history (modern day, diverse America)

If you can talk about how any one of these elements affects the content of Michelle Obama’s speech, you can get the sophistication point.
For example: you could discuss how Michelle Obama spends a good portion of her speech acknowledging different groups in America because of the context of a diverse, modern America, and the reality that her audience of American students is made up of all socioeconomic classes and religious faiths. She acknowledges them because that makes her message feel more personal, so the audience is more receptive to what she has to say.
Complexities and tensions in a passage often stem from the rhetorical situation. For example, Obama talks about how she and her husband came from less privileged backgrounds, even how her dad worked at a city water plant. As First Lady, she has a position of power, but she emphasizes her humble background in order to be more relatable to her audience of students — if she didn’t, she’d feel like just another authority figure lecturing from up high.
If you can work that kind of analysis (in fancier language) into your essay on exam day, you’ll get the sophistication point.
That’s all I have — good luck!

New account I made for privacy reasons
I took AP Calculus AB freshman year, AP Calculus BC sophomore year, and I finished the courses at my high school so I'm taking vector calculus at a nearby community college, with vector calculus 1 the first semester and vector calculus 2 this semester.
Demographics
· Gender: Male
· Race/Ethnicity: Asian
· Residence: Northwest USA, Suburban
· Income Bracket: $100k-$150k
· Type of School: Public, ~2100 students, mediocre competition
· Hooks (Recruited Athlete, URM, First-Gen, Geographic, Legacy, etc.): None
Intended Major(s): Astrophysics (also, can someone tell me how competitive astrophysics is for t20s? Like, asian + cs is hellish, but what about astrophysics?)
Academics
· GPA (UW/W): 4.0/4.47
· Rank (or percentile): 1/620, (will probably be valedictorian)
· # of Honors/AP/IB/Dual Enrollment/etc.: 12 APs, 2 Community College classes (will be 4 next year with multivariable equations and maybe linear algebra)

• Junior year course load: AP Biology, AP Comp Sci, AP English Lang, AP Economics, French 3, Advertising and Promotion, AP Statisics, Vector Calculus 1/2 (at community college)

· Senior Year Course Load: AP Physics C, AP Studio Art, AP English Lit, Multivariable Equations (at community college), APUSH, French 4, APES
Standardized Testing
List the highest scores earned and all scores that were reported.
· SAT I: 1580 (780 RW, 800M)
· ACT: N/A
· AP/IB:
o 9^th grade: AP Calculus AB (5)
o 10^th Grade: AP Calculus BC (5), AP Psych (5), AP Physics C [Self Studied] (5)
o 11^th Grade: AP Comp Sci AP English Language, AP Statistics, AP Biology , AP Economics
· Other (ex. IELTS, TOEFL, etc.): N/A
Extracurriculars/Activities
List all extracurricular involvements, including leadership roles, time commitments, major achievements, etc.
1. School Newspaper Club: Writer, write for school’s Medium Website. (10, 11, 12)
2. Individual Writer: Have written 30+ articles (over 12,000+ words) on philosophy (actual philosophy), psychology, science (specifically physics/space sciences) and fiction. (9, 10, 11, 12)
3. Taekwondo 3^rd Dan Black Belt: Multiple time state level gold medalist, and have also refereed for seminars and tournaments. Volunteer 1-2 hours a week (9, 10, 11, 12)
4. SNHS – Member (9, 10) Co-President (11, 12)
5. Speech & Debate: Have gone to nationals twice, chose not to mention in the awards section and put it here instead. (10, 11, 12)
6. Physics/Science and Mathematics Non-Profit Tutoring: Tutoring at school (10, 11, 12), and private non-profit organization tutoring for elementary/middle/high schoolers in physics and mathematics (9, 10, 11, 12)
7. Founder of Philosophy Club (10, 11, 12):
8. Independent Research (9, 10, 11, 12): 3 papers Published in State University
9. Research at local community college (and later on, with local state university) (11, 12)
10. Gardening (9, 10, 11, 12): Maintain a lot of fruit and vegetable plants in my backyard, along with a lot of flowers (submitted a photo of).
Awards/Honors
List all awards and honors submitted on your application.
1. #1 JSHS Award
2. #2 ISEF Regeneron Category Finalist
3. #3 2x USA(j)MO Qualifier
4. #4 MIT PRIMES (I accredit this to my USA(j)MO qualifications
5. #5 National Merit Scholar

Additional Info (I put the some more awards here):
- 5x Kukkiwon Taekwondo State Tournament Gold Medalist; 3x Distance break, 2x Kombat Taekwondo.
- Speech and Debate National Qualifying Team
- National Poetry Award winner (won’t specify which for privacy)
Letters of Recommendation
School Principal: Have an ok relationship with him, but the key thing is that he only gives a few students recommendation letters.
Counselor: Ok/Decent relationship
Multivariable Calculus Professor: Ok/Decent Relationship

A personal note from Sargon Of Akkad…
As a proud and vocal defender of free speech, I am pleased to announce that I am moving my YouTube channel and podcast to a new location: the bathroom of my local McDonald's.
Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "But Sargon, why on earth would you choose to broadcast your content from a fast food restaurant's bathroom? Won't that be unhygienic and uncomfortable for both you and your audience?"
Well, let me tell you. The McDonald's bathroom is the perfect location for my content. For starters, it is a publicly accessible space, which means that anyone can come and listen to me speak my mind without fear of censorship or persecution.
Furthermore, the bathroom provides the perfect acoustics for my voice. The echo chamber effect will make me sound like the powerful and persuasive speaker that I am, and the background noise of flushing toilets will add an exciting and dynamic soundscape to my content.
But most importantly, the McDonald's bathroom is a space where I can truly be myself. I won't have to worry about being judged or criticized for my controversial opinions, because the people who frequent the bathroom are likely to be too preoccupied with their own personal business to pay attention to me.
In short, the McDonald's bathroom is the ideal location for my YouTube channel and podcast. So, if you want to hear the unvarnished truth and the unfiltered opinions of a true free speech warrior, come on down to my local McDonald's and join me in the bathroom.
Together, we can take back the public square and defend our right to speak our minds without fear of reprisal. And hey, if you get hungry while you're there, you can always grab a tasty McRib sandwich (while supplies last).

This will hopefully be my last post on this sub for a long time, but I’ve been using this place to vent about my toxic situation for a while so I figured I might as well post how everything concluded and what happened when I left. I’m going to reflect on everything and recap the important parts so no one has to read 3 posts.
It all started when I decided to start DMing to keep in touch with some college friends after graduation. During my first campaign, one of the players, Pirate, asked if his friend, Colorado, could join. I didn't really know Colorado, but I figured, "the more, the merrier."
Colorado had some issues early on, giving unsolicited advice to everyone on how to play and viewing newer or shy players as “side characters”. However, he frequently missed sessions, only showing up for less than half of them for the first few years so nothing came to a head early on. Then, Colorado decided he wanted to bring back his tabletop campaign from his college days and started trying to recruit players after my sessions. Pirate suggested I join the campaign, promising that Colorado was a better DM than player. Since I had been the Forever DM up to that point, I agreed to give it a go.
I created a character who was part of the royal family but enjoyed interacting with commoners in the slums, even having a secret girlfriend from that background. After that, Colorado also started hitting me up to help with the campaign. I ended up photoshopping character art for a bunch of his NPCs and I even drew his world map for him. I didn't mind doing it, as I do that kind of stuff for fun.
For our first session, Colorado had already created character sheets for us based on our backstories, but only he could see them. Colorado would also roll all the dice himself so “all we had to focus on is roleplaying”. We played one on one in different "scenes" that could last around 30 minutes to an hour each. We usually had around 2 to 4 scenes per session, depending on what Colorado thought was important. During the game, Colorado asked us to write down quotes from him and the other players when it wasn't our turn.
I had to wait for well over an hour before I could finally play. My first session was on rails. I mostly just had to repeat after Colorado during a ceremony. Afterwards, I got to sneak out of the castle and meet with my commoner girlfriend, but Colorado immediately had her break up with me. Then I was told that I had to leave the city. I was essentially locked out of my hanging out in the slums and commoner girlfriend subplots. NPCs generally disliked my morally good character, especially my sister who was depicted as purely evil towards me. Despite my efforts to mend the relationship, she never changed her mind and Colorado never rolled any dice to determine that. Later Colorado revealed to me the character was based on his ex-girlfriend, who was originally intended to be the player character from my country before they broke up.
Eventually, I finally got to interact with another player, Soldier, who I had really good chemistry with and we had a really fun scene. Which Colorado exclaimed, “See! This is why I keep you apart. It makes these moments so much more epic!” But I’m just thinking that if we were in a party, every session could be this epic.
Then Colorado got busy. He went to some alternative medicine nature retreat and didn’t pay his rent the whole time he was gone so he got evicted. At that point, the campaign went on hiatus as people got busy and Colorado was couch hopping. It was during that time I considered the campaign over and made my first post because I thought it fit the sub. Then a year after the last session, Colorado started trying to organize the group to do 3 more sessions to finish the campaign. I just ghosted the group chat for a while, but Pirate’s roommate is a player in the campaign I DM so Pirate started hopping on the call asking me to come back for the finale. Pirate told me that it would be different this time because all of our characters were going to meet up for the finale and he really wanted to play with me. I naively agreed to give the game a second chance.
The first of those three sessions led to this post and this follow up.
[TLDR - I never got to meet up with the other characters. Colorado made my ex a stripper and I was captured by invaders with no dice rolls to prevent it. I had a conversation with him about my concerns after the last session. He apologized and agreed to make changes saying he needed the campaign for his mental health.]
Colorado decided to have a single super finale session, which I reluctantly attended because of sunk cost fallacy. I was imprisoned, beaten and whipped, separated from my girlfriend and recently resurrected bodyguard. A deus-ex ninja offered to help me escape, but I wanted to save all the prisoners. So I helped the commoners escape with the ninja before saving my girlfriend. My bodyguard got captured, but I made sure my girlfriend escaped and then I went to save my bodyguard because I wasn’t letting her die after she just got resurrected. I tried to find my bodyguard but every door was locked and I was forced into a long one on one fight with a guard that would make John Carpenter blush. I lost the fight due to an unknown -2 modifier on my fighting rolls, leading to my re-imprisonment.
Pirate tried to board a boat to reach my location, but was unsuccessful. Colorado informed him that the sailors refused to let him on the ship because they didn't like his tone. Fortunately, Soldier saved me and we agreed to stop the big bad and rescue my bodyguard together. With a squad of Soldier's peers, we pursued the big bad into the woods. Without any rolls, all the other soldiers were sniped by archers.
Finally, the two of us reached the clearing where the big bad and his followers were. We were outnumbered about 30-2. My bodyguard and the other commoners were tied to a tree. Soldier was the same race as the villain so he approached while I stayed hidden. He delivered an awesome passionate speech against the big bad's actions saying that it wasn’t what their ancestors would want. I’m sitting there waiting and hoping for a persuasion roll… and nothing. Colorado says the big bad doesn’t change his mind and he sets the tree on fire, causing my bodyguard and the commoners to burn to death. Soldier and I retreated into the woods to end the campaign.
Pirate was supposed to have a scene after us, but he fell asleep because it was past 1am. Colorado kept trying to call Pirate on the phone. I joke, “Hey, we’re old now, being up past midnight isn’t as easy as it used to.” To which Colorado replies, “I just thought Pirate had more respect for me than this.” The Discord call becomes quiet and after Colorado starts focusing on Soldier and I. He wants to know why we’re not discussing the ending more. I remarked that it was a bit of a downer and I’m tired. Then Colorado starts spiraling, saying that RPGs are just another medium that he failed at just like film and music. HE STARTS CRYING and hangs up from the Discord call. Soldier and I stayed on and had a short “That was awkward” conversation. I don’t know Soldier well so I didn’t say much about my grievances with the campaign and eventually we ended up just talking about Baldur’s Gate 3 for an hour.
The next day, I wake up to a barrage of texts from Colorado apologizing, mansplaining how hard it is to be a DM as if I’ve never done it myself. He then starts sending me messages with all his ideas for my character in the next season and how he promises I’ll have more freedom next time. I wouldn’t understand, but he NEEDED to do the prison sequence and my bodyguard to die for my character growth, but next season will be different. I tell him I’m not doing another season. Colorado replies saying that he thought I’d say that because Pirate (who was apparently not sleeping) told him Soldier and I were bitching about the campaign after the session. Colorado said that once I get over it, we can start talking about season 3. I reaffirmed my stance. Then Colorado texts me one last time and asks if I’ll still make his maps and character art even if I don’t play. I said no again.
It's been two months since I last heard from Colorado or Pirate. We used to play games and talk about pro wrestling all the time, but now there's been no contact. A lot of the comments on my posts helped me realize I was prioritizing Colorado’s mental health over my own and I felt like it was my responsibility to support his campaign because he constantly referenced how important it was to his mental health. Intentional or not, he preyed upon my empathy. I’m not his Giving Tree and I shouldn’t be left a stump for a campaign where he doesn’t even want us to affect the world.
I sometimes worry Pirate is going through a similar situation to me, but for a longer period of time. Pirate introduced me to Colorado, and he's really loyal to him. I think that slowed down my exit from the group because I trusted Pirate to be my friend as well. I remember opening up to Pirate about a panic attack I had while Colorado was spiraling one day, and he just shrugged it off as me being dramatic. It's frustrating. I want both of them to be happy, but I can't make that happen for them, especially if it comes at the expense of my own well-being.
I ended up venting to some of my irl friends and they really supported and listened to me which is why I didn’t feel a need to vent here. I learned a lot about what not to do when DMing from this campaign and it made me reevaluate my approach to playing RPGs. Now I'm in a group with my irl friends and it's a blast. I can relax and just have fun playing again.
TLDR - I started DMing to stay connected with college friends who were scattered across the country. One player, Pirate, introduced me to Colorado, who eventually took over as the DM. Colorado had some unconventional methods, such as not using character sheets and controlling all the dice rolls. The game became focused on his storyline and my character had limited agency. Despite this, I gave the campaign a second chance. In the final session, things went poorly, and Colorado had a breakdown. Despite his apologies and promises for the next season, I decided not to continue playing. I have not heard from Colorado or Pirate since. I now play with my real-life friends and it's much more enjoyable.

After the death of Stalin the USSR began "Destalinization" and denounced his rule. His body was removed from Lenin's Mausoleum, his name taken off of many buildings, monuments, etc. His predecessor Nikita Khrushchev had a speech known as the "Secret Speech" to which he attacks Stalin for his anti Marxist, brutal, and tyrant like rule and cites that Lenin had warned of it before his death in (Automod: Lenin's Testament) "Lenin's Testament".
Some key excerpts from Khrushchev's "Secret Speech":

Allow me first of all to remind you how severely the classics of Marxism-Leninism denounced every manifestation of the cult of the individual. In a letter to the German political worker, Wilhelm Bloss, Marx stated: "From my antipathy to any cult of the individual, I never made public during the existence of the International the numerous addresses from various countries which recognized my merits and which annoyed me. I did not even reply to them, except sometimes to rebuke their authors. Engels and I first joined the secret society of Communists on the condition that everything making for superstitious worship of authority would be deleted from its statute...

​

Lenin taught that the party's strength depends on its indissoluble unity with the masses, on the fact that behind the party follow the people - workers, peasants and intelligentsia. "Only he will win and retain the power," said Lenin, "who believes in the people, who submerges himself in the fountain of the living creativeness of the people.".

​

During Lenin's life the central committee of the party- was a real expression of collective leadership of the party and of the Nation. Being a militant Marxist-revolutionist, always unyielding in matters of principle, Lenin never imposed by force his views upon his coworkers. He tried to convince; he patiently explained his opinions to others. Lenin always diligently observed that the norms of party life were realized, that the party statute was enforced, that the party congresses and the plenary sessions of the central committee took place at the proper intervals.

​

In addition to the great accomplishments of V. I. Lenin for the victory of the working class and of the working peasants, for the victory of our party and for the application of the ideas of scientific communism to life, his acute mind expressed itself also in this that he detected in Stalin in time those negative characteristics which resulted later in grave consequences. Fearing the future fate of the party and of the Soviet nation, V.I. Lenin made a completely correct characterization of Stalin, pointing out that it was necessary to consider the question of transferring Stalin from the position of Secretary General because of the fact that Stalin is excessively rude, that he does not have a proper attitude toward his comrades, that lie is capricious, and abuses his power...

​

Vladimir Ilyich said: "Stalin is excessively rude, and this defect, which can be freely tolerated in our midst and in contacts among us Communists, becomes a defect which cannot be tolerated in one holding the position of the Secretary General. Because of this, I propose that the comrades consider the method by which Stalin would be removed from this position and by which another man would be selected for it, a man, who above all, would differ from Stalin in only one quality, namely, greater tolerance, greater loyalty, greater kindness, and more considerate attitude toward the comrades, a less capricious temper, etc.".

​

When we analyze the practice of Stalin in regard to the direction of the party and of the country, when we pause to consider everything which Stalin perpetrated, we must be convinced that Lenin's fears were justified. The negative characteristics of Stalin, which, in Lenin's time, were on1v incipient, transformed themselves during the last years into a grave abuse o f power by Stalin, which caused untold harm to our party...

​

Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation, and patient cooperation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint, and the correctness of his position was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation. This was especially true during the period following the 17th party congress, when many prominent party leaders and rank-and-file party workers, honest and dedicated to the cause of communism, fell victim to Stalin's despotism...

​

Stalin originated the concept enemy of the people. This term automatically rendered it unnecessary that the ideological errors of a man or men engaged in a controversy be proven; this term made possible the usage of the most cruel repression, violating all norms of revolutionary legality, against anyone who in any way disagreed with Stalin, against those who were only suspected of hostile intent, against those who had bad reputations. This concept, enemy of the people, actually eliminated the possibility of any kind of ideological fight or the making of one's views known on this or that issue, even those of a practical character. In the main, and in actuality, the only proof of guilt used, against all norms of current legal science, was the confession of the accused himself, and, as subsequent probing proved, confessions were acquired through physical pressures against the accused...

​

Lenin used severe methods only in the most necessary cases, when the exploiting classes were still in existence and were vigorously opposing the revolution, when the struggle for survival was decidedly assuming the sharpest forms, even including a civil war.

​

Stalin, on the other hand, used extreme methods and mass repressions at a time when the revolution was already victorious, when the Soviet state was strengthened, when the exploiting classes were already liquidated, and Socialist relations were rooted solidly in all phases of national economy, when our party was politically consolidated and had strengthened itself both numerically and ideologically. It is clear that here Stalin showed in a whole series of cases his intolerance, his brutality, and his abuse of power. Instead of proving his political correctness and mobilizing the masses, he often chose the path of repression and physical annihilation, not only against actual enemies, but also against individuals who had not committed any crimes against the party and the Soviet Government. Here we see no wisdom but only a demonstration of the brutal force which had once so alarmed V.I Lenin...

​

In practice Stalin ignored the norms of party life and trampled on the Leninist principle of collective party leadership.

​

Stalin's willfulness vis-a-vis the party and its central committee became fully evident after the 17th party congress, which took place in 1934...

​

It was determined that of the 139 members and candidates of the party's Central Committee who were elected at the 17th congress, 98 persons, that is, 70 percent, were arrested and shot (mostly in 1937-38). [Indignation in the hall.] . . .

​

The same fate met not only the central committee members but also the majority of the delegates to the 17th party congress. Of 1,966 delegates with either voting or advisory rights, 1,108 persons were arrested on charges of anti-revolutionary crimes, i.e., decidedly more than a majority. This very fact shows how absurd, wild, and contrary to commonsense were the charges of counter-revolutionary crimes made out, as we now see, against a majority of participants at the 17th party congress. [Indignation in the hall.] . . .

​

What is the reason that mass repressions against activists increased more and more after the 17th party congress? It was because at that time Stalin had so elevated himself above the party and above the nation that he ceased to consider either the central committee or the party. While he still reckoned with the opinion of the collective before the 17th congress, after the complete political liquidation of the Trotskyites, Zinovievites and Bukharinites, when as a result of that fight and Socialist victories the party achieved unity, Stalin ceased to an ever greater degree to consider the members of the party's central committee and even the members of the Political Bureau. Stalin thought that now he could decide all things alone and all he needed were statisticians; he treated all others in such a way that they could only listen to and praise him.

​

You see to what Stalin's mania for greatness led. He had completely lost consciousness of reality; he demonstrated his suspicion and haughtiness not only in relation to individuals in the USSR, but in relation to whole parties and nations...

​

Comrades, if we sharply criticize today the cult of the individual which was so widespread during Stalin's life and if we speak about the many negative phenomena generated by this cult which is so alien to the spirit of Marxism-Leninism, various persons may ask: How could it be? Stalin headed the party and the country for 30 years and many victories were gained during his lifetime. Can we deny this? In my opinion, the question can be asked in this manner only by those who are blinded and hopelessly hypnotized by the cult of the individual, only by those who do not understand the essence of the revolution and of the Soviet State, only by those who do not understand, in a Leninist manner, the role of the party and of the nation in the development of the Soviet society...

​

To return to and actually practice in all our ideological work, the most important theses of Marxist-Leninist science about the people as the creator of history and as the creator of all material and spiritual good of humanity, about the decisive role of the Marxist party in the revolutionary fight for the transformation of society-, about the victory of communism.

​

In this connection we will be forced to do much work in order to examine critically from the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint and to correct the widely spread erroneous views connected with the cult of the individual in the sphere of history, philosophy,, economy, and of other sciences, as well as in the literature and the fine arts. It is especially necessary that in the immediate future we compile a serious textbook of the history of our party which will be edited in accordance with scientific Marxist objectivism, a textbook of the history of Soviet society, a book pertaining to the events of the civil war and the great patriotic war.
Secondly, to continue systematically and consistently the work done by the party's central committee during the last years, a work characterized by minute observation in all party organizations, from the bottom to the top, of the Leninist principles of party- leadership, characterized, above all, by the main principle of collective leadership, characterized by the observation of the norms of party life described in the statutes of our party, and, finally, characterized by- the wide practice of criticism and self-criticism.
Thirdly, to restore completely the Leninist principles of Soviet Socialist democracy., expressed in the constitution of the Soviet Union, to fight willfulness of individuals abusing their power. The evil caused by acts violating revolutionary Socialist legality which have accumulated during a long time as a result of the negative influence of the cult of the individual has to be completely corrected.

1. Device Identification Exercise:

• Provide excerpts from various texts and ask students to identify and annotate instances of specific literary devices.
  
• Discuss their findings as a class, exploring different interpretations and applications of the devices.
  

1. Creative Writing Prompts:

• Assign each student a specific literary device and ask them to craft a short story or poem that prominently features that device.
  
• Encourage creativity and exploration of the device's nuances in their narratives.
  

1. Literary Analysis Essays:

• Assign students a literary work (poem, speech, or prose) and ask them to write an essay analyzing the author's use of a chosen literary device.
  
• Emphasize the impact of the device on the overall theme and tone of the work.
  

1. Collaborative Storytelling:

• Divide the class into small groups and have each group create a collaborative story.
  
• Assign a different literary device to each group, instructing them to incorporate it seamlessly into their narrative.
  

1. Speech Writing and Delivery:

• Have students choose a social or political topic and write a persuasive speech using anaphora or epizeuxis to enhance their rhetorical impact.
  
• Organize a speech delivery session where students showcase their use of repetition for emphasis.
  

1. Literary Device Showcase:

• Assign each student or group a different literary device and ask them to prepare a presentation showcasing its historical origins, notable examples, and contemporary usage.
  
• Encourage multimedia elements such as visuals or short video clips to enhance engagement.
  

1. Rewriting Exercises:

• Provide sentences or paragraphs containing common expressions and ask students to rewrite them using more complex literary devices.
  
• Discuss the impact of the changes on tone, mood, and overall meaning.
  

1. Debate on Stylistic Choices:
   • Organize a debate where students defend or critique an author's use of a specific literary device in a given text.

• Encourage students to articulate how the device contributes to or detracts from the effectiveness of the work.

1. Literary Device Scavenger Hunt:

• Provide a list of literary devices and have students search for examples in books, articles, or online.
  
• Discuss their findings in class, exploring how different authors use the same device in diverse ways.
  

1. Themed Poetry Slam:

- Task students with creating a thematic poetry slam where each participant focuses on a different literary device. - Host a class poetry slam event where students perform their pieces and discuss their choices. 

1. Interactive Online Quizzes:

- Curate online quizzes or interactive activities that allow students to self-assess their understanding of literary devices. - Provide instant feedback to reinforce learning. 

1. Peer Review and Feedback:

- Implement peer review sessions where students exchange their creative writing assignments and provide constructive feedback on the integration of literary devices. - Encourage discussions on the effectiveness of different approaches. 

1. Literary Device Journal:

- Assign students a literary device to track in their personal reading over a set period. - Have them maintain a journal documenting instances of the device, their interpretations, and reflections on its impact. 

1. Literary Device Bingo:

- Create bingo cards with different literary devices - As students encounter instances of these devices in class readings or discussions, they mark off the corresponding squares on their bingo cards. 

1. Real-world Application Project:

- Challenge students to find examples of literary devices in advertisements, speeches, or news articles. - Present their findings, discussing how the devices are employed for persuasive or artistic purposes in the real world.