Why Disinfo Agents Are (Sometimes) Effective

1. Dis-Info Agents are First Responders.

Dis-info agents are quick on the draw, watching for important threads they must discredit. It is important that they hit it with negative response as soon as possible so they can "pitch the tone" and set the stage to invalidate the material. Their objective is to influence subsequent viewers. And this must be done as soon as possible in the thread.

Many people often sit back to "see what the crowd says" before they make up their mind. This just seems to be a human characteristic. People do not commit until something has a seal of approval or the general concensus is positive.



2. Dis-info Agents Use Canned Words and Phrases

It is good to offer debate; pro's and cons help us to shape our thoughts and ideas and examine our reasoning. We learn something about why we react the way we do.

But when a reply has no documentation to support an opposing view it is more than likely either an inexperienced poster, a troll, or the dis-info agent.

Another give-away of the dis-info agent are phrases that have no specific information to qualify the statement.


Look for phrases like these:

"Theres no reason to think that."

"We don't know (who) or (what) or if there is such a thing." (The use of the word "we" implies that the general population is in agreement with him and seduces other readers psychologically to go along with his imaginary crowd.)

"We don't know if..." (Often speaks of himself in a plural manner.)

"(your statement) is without basis."

"(your statement) is without evidence." (Respondent contributes no evidence to the contrary.)

"it's unlikely" (but no reason given as to what makes this so.)


It appears that these dis-info agents really have their hands full and I imagine that they are using sheets with phrase listings much like a telemarketer does. Learn to recognize the buzz words of canned responses.

We don't know if there are any people on here that do this.
Its very unlikely.
your thread has no basis.

So have you any evidence to support your theory here? Really that was the gist of what you said but failed to follow your own guidlines.
This is more of a rant than anything else if its just your own opinion and should be moved to the correct forum.

Come on, we don't know if Disinfo Agents even exist!

We suggest you get the facts straight before posting such harmful drivel...

There's no reason to think that all members here are not honest, helpful souls...seeking truth and you Sir, (or Madam) are frankly, slapping us in the face right now.

We don't appreciate it either!

Now, we would suggest...you, that's right you - are the disinfo agent! It is highly unlikely that we are wrong!

Nice post.

But let's all remember that any 'disinfo' campaign is completely dependent on the gullibility of the targeted demographic.

1) Dang, I was on a ciggie break when you posted this.

2) Coca-cola is it!

3) It appears you ran out of ways to prove my existence - oh noes!!

How's about the believers keep to their camp (ie. elsewhere) and let us serious researchers get on with it...feel free to sully what we find though, just do it elsewhere.

-m0r

I'm sick of hearing silly disinfo accusations, and especially. the silly catchphrase "deny ignorance" when all else fails to convince others of their belief.

It doesn't matter if I reply first, second, third or twenty-fifth, if the evidence and facts back up the post.

I tend to notice that those who rant and provide only blame without facts are the one's spreading disinfo, and the one's who use silly catchphrases are often the one's being ignorant.

How can anyone be sure enough to accuse somebody of being a govt. agent without first proof they are one, and secondly the evidence to back up their own opinions which differ from the accused?

[edit on 23-1-2010 by john124]

Once again, if some of you folks ...

... stop disunderstanding, disinterpreting, disexplaining, disposting/disthreading, and disthinking ... you won't be so disinformed.

Originally posted by john124
How can anyone be sure enough to accuse somebody of being a govt. agent without first proof they are one, and secondly the evidence to back up their own opinions which differ from the accused?

Most disinfor allegations come from people that have been debunked or have inconsistentcies in their story. Basically its an immature response when someone cant argue their point. I know, because apparently Im a government agent spreading disinfo about weather phenomena

reply to post by schrodingers dog


ahhh OP, it appears a real one has shown up. Beware of this one...

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
Most disinfor allegations come from people that have been debunked or have inconsistentcies in their story. Basically its an immature response when someone cant argue their point.

You got it backwards. I explained in the original post that is the dis-info person who never qualifies the response. And the response is trite, canned phrases.

If a person wants to effectively debate or shed light on an opposing viewpoint, I welcome it. But I have seen threads with responses that offer absolutely no insight and yet attack the premise using negative phrases without any explanation to back it up.

And yes, I do think this is done to influence popular opinion of those who either do not read or comprehend well or may be just skimming.



The purpose of this thread to help some readers be aware of what seems to be obvious tactics of hit and run debunkers who offer no knowledge or information other than simple negative responses.




[edit on 24-1-2010 by Alethea]

Originally posted by john124

I tend to notice that those who rant and provide only blame without facts are the one's spreading disinfo, and the one's who use silly catchphrases are often the one's being ignorant.

I have merely depicted two observations of disinfo behavior which I articulated; how does that qualify my post as "a rant"?

Originally posted by john124

How can anyone be sure enough to accuse somebody of being a govt. agent without first proof they are one, and secondly the evidence to back up their own opinions which differ from the accused?

This statement shows that you are a person most likely to be affected by someone spreading disinformation. Why? Because you are not a careful reader and you pull assumptions out of thin air and then go on a diatribe about it. You remind me of Roseann Roseannadana.

I never said one word about any government agent. I never accused anyone of being a government agent as you have twice accused me of doing in the above sentence.

My warning observation was meant to protect people like you who might need a hint as to how to recognize someone that might play down an important issue by negative comments without supporting the comments with some evidence or validity.

Maybe you will understand if I try to explain this another way. A disinfo agent uses tactics like when your mother says "No" but does not tell you WHY she said no. The next time, your mother slaps you, but again, it is without giving voice as to what the purpose was. With a disinfo agent this type of behavior is consistent.

Now, if your mother had explained "No, you can't have a cookie because it is too close to dinnertime," she would have qualified her statement and would not be a disinfo agent.

reply to post by john124


Now see what you have done, John124! Already you have started something about disinfo agents being some sort of government people, MIB, KGB, CIA, FBI. See, you throw in a word like "government " agent and immediately it changes everything in my post!

This is also another clue (#3) as to how these people work. They will take your topic off course to focus on an unrelated agenda. Suddenly, other readers are psychologically affected and respond with the disinfo twist of "government agent" in mind. Like this guy who responded to your accusal of me of accusing someone of being a government agent. This was an act of disinformation spread by you. I assume you are an "accidental" disinfo agent because of misunderstanding the original post.

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
I know, because apparently Im a government agent spreading disinfo about weather phenomena