Discussion:
Interesting
(too old to reply)
Farmer Giles
2019-10-07 18:33:19 UTC
Permalink
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.


https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Keema's Nan
2019-10-07 18:59:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.

I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive subjects, and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Farmer Giles
2019-10-07 19:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive subjects, and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-07 19:37:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive subjects, and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.

It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
Farmer Giles
2019-10-07 20:27:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive subjects, and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!

Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
through the ranks:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
Ophelia
2019-10-08 08:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!

Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
through the ranks:

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett

====

It was a surprise to read about Rudd! Although given her arrogance ...

I just didn't get the last bit ...

"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive Tory
bias of its political journalism."

As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
Farmer Giles
2019-10-08 09:50:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
 It was a surprise to read about Rudd!  Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
  As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.

Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
Incubus
2019-10-08 10:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
 It was a surprise to read about Rudd!  Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
  As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
He is certainly out of favour with the chosen few directors.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-08 11:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
 It was a surprise to read about Rudd!  Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
  As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
He is certainly out of favour with the chosen few directors.
There was a time when they seemed to love him. At the time of the 'Oh
Jeremy Corbyn' Glastonbury thing, he was all they seemed to talk about.
Presumably they were appealing to those younger viewers who (we were
told) worshipped him. If they've become less enamoured, maybe it's
because he still can't seem to become convincingly enthusiastic about
the EU?
Incubus
2019-10-08 12:04:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
 It was a surprise to read about Rudd!  Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
  As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
He is certainly out of favour with the chosen few directors.
There was a time when they seemed to love him. At the time of the 'Oh
Jeremy Corbyn' Glastonbury thing, he was all they seemed to talk about.
Presumably they were appealing to those younger viewers who (we were
told) worshipped him. If they've become less enamoured, maybe it's
because he still can't seem to become convincingly enthusiastic about
the EU?
His lack of loyalty to a foreign power is certainly an issue, but the EU is
only half of it.
abelard
2019-10-08 12:16:17 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 12:04:01 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
 It was a surprise to read about Rudd!  Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
  As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
He is certainly out of favour with the chosen few directors.
There was a time when they seemed to love him. At the time of the 'Oh
Jeremy Corbyn' Glastonbury thing, he was all they seemed to talk about.
Presumably they were appealing to those younger viewers who (we were
told) worshipped him. If they've become less enamoured, maybe it's
because he still can't seem to become convincingly enthusiastic about
the EU?
His lack of loyalty to a foreign power is certainly an issue, but the EU is
only half of it.
he just chooses which forrin power/s for his loyalty
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2019-10-08 12:15:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
 It was a surprise to read about Rudd!  Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
  As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
He is certainly out of favour with the chosen few directors.
There was a time when they seemed to love him.
they didn't realise he wa a national socialist at first...they
believed he was 'one of us'...a stalinist international
socialist
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
At the time of the 'Oh
Jeremy Corbyn' Glastonbury thing, he was all they seemed to talk about.
Presumably they were appealing to those younger viewers who (we were
told) worshipped him. If they've become less enamoured, maybe it's
because he still can't seem to become convincingly enthusiastic about
the EU?
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 11:22:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a
large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all
together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
It was a surprise to read about Rudd! Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn.
The BBC these days, is whatever MI5 tells it to be.
Post by Farmer Giles
The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
Ophelia
2019-10-08 12:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a
large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all
together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
It was a surprise to read about Rudd! Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn.
The BBC these days, is whatever MI5 tells it to be.
Post by Farmer Giles
The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.
Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.
==

I always though the BBC was 'far left'!
Ophelia
2019-10-08 11:59:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive
subjects,
and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
Yes, indeed, they are more easy to identify than they imagine.
There are some interesting comments below Craig Murray’s article,
especially ones concerning the almost immediate removal of any posts to
newspaper websites which cast doubt on the official narrative as presented
through the mainstream media.
It would appear that not only are our lords and masters serial liars, but
they are so incredibly paranoid that they cannot cope with the idea that the
sheeple might ever discover anything even approaching the truth.
They like the 'truth', or so they claim, but only their version of it!
Here is another interesting article from Craig Murray - this one's about
a particularly obnoxious BBC presenter who is curently being propelled
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/?s=emma+barnett
====
It was a surprise to read about Rudd! Although given her arrogance ...
I just didn't get the last bit ...
"In choosing a Telegraph columnist to interview Corbyn today for Women’s
Hour, the BBC yet again is making no attempt at all to hide the massive
Tory bias of its political journalism."
As far as I was aware, the BBC were strongly anti Tory or am I
misreading?
The BBC is not so much pro-Tory these days as anti-Corbyn. The puppets
who work there depend for their existence on dancing to the tune of
various controlling interests - that can vary depending on current events.

Corbyn is alleged to have a bias in certain areas (and I don't mean
economic policies and the like), and that's why he's out of favour. That
may be a bit vague but it is necessary these days not to be too explicit.

==

Understood! Seems the BBC changes with the wind. It might be good if
they simply reported (real) news which is 'mostly' what we pay for.

Thank you.
Pancho
2019-10-07 19:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
At least they are easy to identify, by their almost identical reactions to
certain controversial comments and complete silence on other threads.
I presume they are really sitting in a windowless room somewhere with a large
file of instructions giving the official narrative on sensitive subjects, and
working some form of shift pattern where they are never on duty all together.
If I were a mission poster, I would make an effort to post off mission
occasionally, to enhance the illusion of being a normal poster.

The Craig Murray article is interesting, I think most of us believe
lobby organisations, for want of a better name, post on social media in
an effort to move public opinion. A very simple subcase of this is
product reviews in Amazon and Ebay.

So the interesting question is if there is a distributed/community
mechanism to filter out this type of behaviour or a way to attribute
more value to "good" posters.
Incubus
2019-10-08 10:39:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.

I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-08 11:02:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 11:45:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
And more often than not - statistically - the last person will have been
Philip Cross.
Incubus
2019-10-08 12:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
And more often than not - statistically - the last person will have been
Philip Cross.
LOL.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 11:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author

Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.

Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a
banning offence.

Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,

Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
journalists, bloggers, authors and academics such as:
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson

Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.

Edit references are provided below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=20170512174605&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=201801142044
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=histo
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-08 11:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=20170512174605&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=201801142044
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=histo
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 12:09:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=20170512174605
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=2018011420
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=his
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-08 12:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=20170512174605
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=2018011420
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=his
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Ah, you think it's Wikipedia itself (you said Facebook, but aren't we
talking about Wikipedia here?) that is responsible for the problem?
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 12:31:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair
/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously
about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus
on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/
),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible
is
a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=201705121746
05
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=20180114
20
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=h
is
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Ah, you think it's Wikipedia itself (you said Facebook, but aren't we
talking about Wikipedia here?) that is responsible for the problem?
Sorry, yes. Freudian slip on my part.

They are probably all in it together anyway.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-08 12:39:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair
/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/
),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible
is
a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=201705121746
05
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=20180114
20
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=h
is
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Ah, you think it's Wikipedia itself (you said Facebook, but aren't we
talking about Wikipedia here?) that is responsible for the problem?
Sorry, yes. Freudian slip on my part.
What you do with your part is nobody's business but your own :-)
Post by Keema's Nan
They are probably all in it together anyway.
I don't doubt it. Skynet is being created in Silicon Valley as we speak.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 13:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affa
ir
/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously
about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus
on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can
only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently
tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the
apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent
defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-trol
l/
,
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in
what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing
in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible
is
a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable
effort
to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally
disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals
acting
in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=2017051217
46
05
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=201801
14
20
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action
=h
is
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Ah, you think it's Wikipedia itself (you said Facebook, but aren't we
talking about Wikipedia here?) that is responsible for the problem?
Sorry, yes. Freudian slip on my part.
What you do with your part is nobody's business but your own :-)
I abuse it.
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
They are probably all in it together anyway.
I don't doubt it. Skynet is being created in Silicon Valley as we speak.
Dan S. MacAbre
2019-10-08 13:31:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affa
ir
/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-trol
l/
,
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible
is
a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable
effort
to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals
acting
in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=2017051217
46
05
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=201801
14
20
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action
=h
is
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Ah, you think it's Wikipedia itself (you said Facebook, but aren't we
talking about Wikipedia here?) that is responsible for the problem?
Sorry, yes. Freudian slip on my part.
What you do with your part is nobody's business but your own :-)
I abuse it.
Okay, that's quite enough :-)
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
They are probably all in it together anyway.
I don't doubt it. Skynet is being created in Silicon Valley as we speak.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 13:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating
here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-af
fa
ir
/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously
about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to
focus
on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It
wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it
for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can
only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently
tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the
apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent
defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-tr
ol
l/
,
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for
many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And
in
what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing
in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona
responsible
is
a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is
also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable
effort
to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally
disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that
“Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals
acting
in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=20170512
17
46
05
&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=2018
01
14
20
44
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&acti
on
=h
is
to
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=histo
ry
But is anyone surprised that it is going to be used in this way? And
surely not only by this one Philip Cross entity? Perhaps they should be
a bit more proactive, and limit users to a much smaller rate of edits?
The inference being that those who own and control Facebook are party to
the
wholesale editing of controversial subjects, and therefore are the main
problem.
Ah, you think it's Wikipedia itself (you said Facebook, but aren't we
talking about Wikipedia here?) that is responsible for the problem?
Sorry, yes. Freudian slip on my part.
What you do with your part is nobody's business but your own :-)
I abuse it.
Okay, that's quite enough :-)
That is the message I get from it as well. You must be Clare Voyant?
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Dan S. MacAbre
Post by Keema's Nan
They are probably all in it together anyway.
I don't doubt it. Skynet is being created in Silicon Valley as we speak.
Incubus
2019-10-08 12:10:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't
surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
Wikipedia is wide open for manipulation of information. I trust it for
things that I judge to be incontrovertible (episode lists, ancient
history, some science); but for modern history and politics, it can only
be regarded as being the opinion of the last person that edited it.
Wikipedia disappears article on “Philip Cross” & life-bans author
Wkipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mojito_Paraiso)” recently tried
the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently
pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo
source (https://www.rt.com/uk/426679-cross-galloway-clark-wikipedia-troll/),
making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many
alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what
looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in
perpetuity.
Apparently defaming John Pilger, George Galloway, Media Lens etc is
acceptable Wikiconduct, but drawing attention to the persona responsible is a
banning offence.
Here is the text of the now-vanished entry on Philip Cross. Judge for
yourselves if the response was deserved,
Philip Cross is a self-described jazz and drama enthusiast. He is also a
controversial Wikipedia user and editor who dedicates considerable effort to
editing Wikipedia entries for well-known British anti-establishment
George Galloway
Neil Clark
Craig Murray
Media Lens
Gilad Atzmon
Tim Hayward
Piers Robinson
Cross’ edits in relation to the above parties are generally disparaging,
however, the quantity and frequency of the edits suggest that “Philip
Cross” may be a pseudonym for a group of like-minded individuals acting in
concert.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Pilger&offset=20170512174605&a
ction=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Media_Lens&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Galloway&offset=201801142044
44&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilad_Atzmon&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Hayward_(academic)&action=histo
ry
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piers_Robinson&action=history
Curioser and curioser.
Keema's Nan
2019-10-08 11:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
Indeed, and some of them are a bit spammy, if you know what I mean.
I suspect this kind of thing goes on a lot. We have heard previously about
Israel's army of trolls (although the media of course prefers to focus on
Russia) and how they set out to influence public opinion. It wouldn't surprise
me if Momentum and Remainers are using the same tricks.
I’m sure everyone is.

If you believe Snowden, GCHQ treat this kind of opinion forming very
seriously - and by some of the views expressed here when the official
narrative is treated as fact on the flimsiest of evidence (or none at all;
but loads if you count what they ’say’ they have but can’t reveal for
security reasons), they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
RH156RH
2019-10-08 14:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
PCBots programmed with instructions to produce the most damaging propaganda against the West which is achieved by algorithms which replicate treason in human beings... RH
Gary Walker
2019-10-08 15:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
I have long suspected that we have some similar types operating here.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/
"Right wing columnist Melanie Phillips had her embarrassing climate change denial excised by Cross."

Uh-oh - climate fantasist alert. The irony of Murray's stance as a nihilist uncovering establishment conspiracy and his apparent conformity with AGW hysteria.

"“Philip Cross” not only carefully tends and protects the Wikipedia entry of Guardian editor Katherine Viner, who has taken the paper four square into the neo-con camp, "

Oh, dear.....

I can relate to a lot of what Craig Murray says, but he'd have more credibility if he didn't talk such twaddle.
Loading...