reply to post by ziggystar60
You know what, i prepared a somewhat epic post for you just now and my cable operator cut out again.
I'll try again;
*recollects thoughts on the matter*
Well, it's quite difficult to simply point out a seemingly 'harmless' thread due to the nature of the subversive action, they are after all going
to quite some length to disguise their movements.
Where was i @ this point?
The motivations of a disinfo agent on this matter is simple - to generate rapport with members of the website, thereby providing them with a certain
degree of security where anti-subversion is concerned.
The ultimate goal of this is to create a schism among the membership demographic, this is easier if there are more than one disinfo agents working
together - HOWEVER, it is quite unlikely that these agents will acknowledge one another's existence willingly, perhaps even going to the extent of
which they would accuse one another of being disinfo agents.
An extremity, which pulled off correctly, will leave the average member befuddled as to what is really going on.
I believe at this point i started blathering on about battlefield tactics such as 'swarming', drawing comparisions to how on d-day the allies
dropped in men behind enemy lines and even though they were disorganised they managed to sow chaos and discord among the german supply lines, thereby
providing the main force a chance at a successful landing without the threat of an absolute defeat.
Then i went on to comment on how battlefield tactics can be quite readily converted to insurgency tactics, in the case of disinformation - the agents
would work alone, amassing rapport with the users until one day a signal is given, and tshtf.
*attempts to recall how the post was ended*
Ah! of course, i made a point on the behaviour of members.
As i stated before, i consider it unlikely that a disinformation agent would go to the extent of acting like a big baby, throwing a temper tantrum @
other members based on one vice or another.
Indeed, those that occasionally break the rules are often the most sane and level-headed members of society, if only because they acknowledge that
there are some circumstances in which the rules need to be broken in order to acheive what they see as finality over an issue.
If there was a book on internet surveillence, i imagine that there would be a point on this somewhere, as a member who consistently garners rapport
with other users without falling out of favour with them would be a highly suspicious individual, if only because his personality does not seem
capable of such charismatic progress.
This post is so different from what i originally wanted to post it's not even funny.
*Copies text just incase it happens again as i hit the 'post reply' button, and i lose everything i've typed*