Hungary's refugee-kicking camerawoman pondering move to Russia...
POSTED BY: kpo
UPDATED: Monday, August 4, 2025 00:24
VIEWED: 7146
PAGE 3 of 7
"You insist on calling facts - archival filmography, direct quotes, historically documented lists of cities bombed - propaganda."
Yes indeed, your inability to look at facts is a failing of yours. I appreciate you benefiting my argument by reiterating how poorly you relate to factual material. You disdain historical factual material.
What are you claiming?
Archival filmography isn't factual? What would you call similar films made by the crews that bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Fiction?
What would you call direct quotes that can be verified through many sources by a simple google search? Fantasy?
And what would you call historically documented lists of cities that were bombed, that can also be verified through many sources? Propaganda?
I never suggested you trust any information just because it came from a particular website. I also criticized you for dismissing it for the same reason. I said that you should VERIFY the CONTENT through OTHER sources.
You quoted my support of verifiable historical documentation as if I was telling you to trust a 'source'. Instead, I was telling you that that CONTENT was valuable because it can be researched. But it's an idea so foreign to you, you didn't understand it at all. You treated it with contempt.
BTW - deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting my posts - makes me wonder if you have any ethics at all. How does it feel to be so deeply dishonorable you have to constantly employ propagandist tactics against others - by misrepresenting their posts, by trying to distract from your inability to address the facts, by attempting to derail the discussion with irrelevancies, by ad hominem attacks, and by irrelevant and multiple attacks over many threads to 'bury' your failures under bullshit - to try to 'win'?
How does it feel to be so deeply dishonest you have to twist reality to try to 'win'? To deny the undeniable fact that OSCE has never encountered Russian troops in Ukraine for example? Or that OSCE UAVs were jammed over Ukrainian territory? Or that Ukrainian troops actively denied access to OSCE inspectors? Those are all facts contained in the OSCE reports. Do you think that if you foam at the mouth enough it'll make those facts go away?
When you do that are you so enraged by your failures you lash out without restraint? Or is it a choice, where you're in control of yourself?
I'm really curious.
I can understand how you might miss fact. But then, you make a point of insisting that your OBVIOUS error was correct ... and doing that over ... and over, and over ... and then engaging in those tactics I pointed out - to the point where, frankly, you start to look like either you're unhinged, or deeply morally disturbed.
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bottom line: This woman, and I use the term loosely, is a despicable cow who has no regard for human life. Whether she goes to Russia, or not, has no bearing on her sick behavior.
She should go to Russia and be sent to Siberia for all I care.
SGG
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That seems to be KPO's MO, so I'd have to vote "yes" in KPO's case.
How does it feel to ... To deny the undeniable fact that OSCE has never encountered Russian troops in Ukraine for example? Or that OSCE UAVs were jammed over Ukrainian territory? Or that Ukrainian troops actively denied access to OSCE inspectors? Those are all facts contained in the OSCE reports. Do you think that if you foam at the mouth enough it'll make those facts go away?
--------------
You can't build a nation with bombs. You can't create a society with guns.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
G, 1kiki's mental health short comings include some sort of transference. She clams it is her opponent that's doing what she is doing. I'm sure there are a few other psychoses there as well, but transference, and pathological liar are definitely amongst them.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What are you claiming?
Archival filmography isn't factual?
I pointed out instances where the neo-Nazi propaganda film was NOT factual - where it spliced and combined different quotes to make fake ones, and where it pushed debunked lies. But you seem to think that if a propaganda film gets a few things right, uses some authentic footage, and some accurate quotes, then it's fine for it to make up shit as well?
Quote:
I never suggested you trust any information just because it came from a particular website. I also criticized you for dismissing it for the same reason.
And yet I was right to, and you were wrong to believe it.
Quote:
I said that you should VERIFY the CONTENT through OTHER sources.
Why didn't YOU follow your own advice?
Quote:
To deny the undeniable fact that OSCE has never encountered Russian troops in Ukraine
Dimwit, how would they know? If the soldiers have taken off all insignia, and deny that they are Russian or active service members or both? But you seem to KNOW that this is not the case - in fact you call it 'undeniable'. Care to explain your logic?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by G:Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
G, 1kiki's mental health short comings include some sort of transference. She clams it is her opponent that's doing what she is doing. I'm sure there are a few other psychoses there as well, but transference, and pathological liar are definitely amongst them.
It's like a reflective transference and everyone's a mirror - that's a frightening prospect. Hmmm... Boomerang Psychosis... naw, needs more work.
Yes but it's a brilliant deduction. Every post 1kiki and SIG make are directed against reflective images of themselves. Their perception is that they are addressing us and what we are posting but, we know they are not. Unfortunately a residual result of that is, the image of the rest of us banging on a door that's never answered and refusing to accept no one is home.
Which psychosis is worse I wonder?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I pointed out instances where the neo-Nazi propaganda film was NOT factual ...
No, you didn't. You were upset about the source. In fact you've whined about the source in post after post and over thread after thread. And you criticized other things that were at that source. But you didn't dispute the facts of the film with provable facts of your own. You made unsubstantiated CLAIMS. You CLAIMED that that area of Dresden was a military target, for example. But facts proved you wrong. Again.
But you seem to think that if a propaganda film gets a few things right, uses some authentic footage, and some accurate quotes, then it's fine for it to make up shit as well?
Where did I say that? Was it here? Archival filmography isn't factual?
Here? What would you call direct quotes that can be verified through many sources by a simple google search?
Here? And what would you call historically documented lists of cities that were bombed, that can also be verified through many sources?
Here? I said that you should VERIFY the CONTENT through OTHER sources.
Because honestly, I don't know what you're replying to when you say I think it's OK to 'make things up'. Especially when I posted about verifying the content through other sources again, and again ... and again ... and again ...
You're certainly not replying to my posts. Perhaps you're replying to the voice in your head.
Again.
kiki - To deny the undeniable fact that OSCE has never encountered Russian troops in Ukraine.
kpo - Dimwit, how would they know? If the soldiers have taken off all insignia, and deny that they are Russian or active service members or both? But you seem to KNOW that this is not the case - in fact you call it 'undeniable'. Care to explain your logic?
How is the SMM supposed to know if there're Russians in Eastern Ukraine? The same way your sources know Russians are in Ukraine. Language. Accent. Equipment. Uniforms. Tactics. Training. Overhearing people in a pub.
MEANWHILE remember what you claimed about my posts? You claimed I said THIS: who argues vehemently that neo-Nazi videos are a reliable historical source
Yanno, I'm STILL waiting for you to find me that quote.
GO boy! FETCH!
SAGAN: We are releasing vast quantities of carbon dioxide, increasing the greenhouse effect. It may not take much to destabilize the Earth's climate, to convert this heaven, our only home in the cosmos, into a kind of hell.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kpo
I just want to point out some of the things you posted that you'd probably rather we all forget.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=59952&p=1 and continuing through the thread
What you said about Dresden:
The point of the allied bombing campaigns was generally to degrade the enemy's ability to wage war. Destroy its factories, munitions stores, transport hubs, military facilities etc. Bombing targets were ALWAYS chosen with these things in mind.
What the facts say about Dresden:
In the raid, major industrial areas in the suburbs, which stretched for miles, were not targeted.[8] According to Donald Miller "the economic disruption would have been far greater had Bomber Command targeted the suburban areas where most of Dresden's manufacturing might was concentrated."
And you never actually examined the CONTENT of the Dresden video. You preferred then and still prefer now to characterize it according to its 'source'. Here you are discussing a different video from the one Signy posted - and objection to the 'source'
Another Hellstorm 'documentary', which sums up the website quite well
and objecting to the source again
Go back to your Nazi website
and again
I have nothing to say in response to Nazi propaganda
and again
If it's Nazi propaganda, like what you posted, I won't even bother watching
and again
I stopped watching ... and found the 'Hellstorm' website the video came from
and again
You're going to stand by the accuracy of your Nazi film are you? That's fine. I'm not even going to watch it.
and again
I don't feel comfortable watching neo-Nazi propaganda
and again
Why don't you put forward some evidence that ISN'T neo-Nazi propaganda?
Now here I say you need to examine the content:
You insist on calling facts - archival filmography, direct quotes, historically documented lists of cities bombed - propaganda.
I have an idea. Why don't you address the facts, instead of clinging to your delusions?
But rather than examine the content for veracity, you object to the source, yet again
tell me that ... you're completely happy with it as a source.
So I pointed out that you were discussing an entirely different video from the one Signy posted
Not only do you not discuss Signy's actual post - you substitute an entirely different video.
Now THAT'S a strawman! KUDOS! Goebbels would be proud!
And rather than stick to the topic, you objected to the source, yet again
from the same website, and made by the same people... a neo-Nazi website as a source
and again
Why rely on a source that spews Nazi propaganda?
and again
I'm not going to give a video from a neo-Nazi website the time of day
and again
The production is very slick... Nazi propaganda
and again
video from a neo-Nazi website
and again
Nazi propaganda
and again
The fact that it comes from a neo-Nazi website is not enough for you?
and again
this Nazi video
and again
neo-Nazi websitess
and again
a neo-Nazi website
and again
the video comes from a neo-Nazi source.
Yes, that characterizes your ability to stick to the topic and discuss relevant fact quite nicely. Though for your benefit, I'll have to point out that it means you have no ability to do either.
So when I posted this -
In fact you've whined about the source in post after post and over thread after thread (including this one btw). And you criticized other things that were at that source. But you didn't dispute the facts of the film with provable facts of your own. You made unsubstantiated CLAIMS. You CLAIMED that that area of Dresden was a military target, for example. But facts proved you wrong. Again.
- I think I described you extremely well.
So, when you have to keep engaging in propagandist tactics - what goes through your head? Are you so enmeshed in the game of 'winning' for your 'side' you
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
GSTRING, all I got from your post is that KPO said EXACTLY what KIKI said it was. Post after post, whining that the source was a Nazi website.
Now, if there's one thing that I've learned from reading KPO's posts, it's that KPO relies on "sources" to filter the news for him. That also comes up in post after post. and thread after thread, and only a liar would try to refute that. Once a "source" says something that KPO disagrees with (not necessarily lies or errors, just a source that rubs KPO the wrong way) KPO deems it "propaganda" and rejects everything that comes with it.
Curiously, there are "sources" that KPO likes to rely on which are equally specious - Bellingcrap, for example, which has been so wrong so often that it's claims should be taken with an ocean of salt. But it's British, don't you know. From an earnest white guy who shares KPO's prejudices, and so KPO simply refuses to put Bellingcrap on the "propaganda" pile. Just FYI- I've give you two specific examples of where Bellingcrap got it wrong, wrong, wrong:
In Syria, Bellingcrap claimed to have irrefutable evidence that it was the Syrian government that gassed its own people. Man, KPO was all over that, like white on rice. But even AT THE TIME (and I can dig up my olds posts, if you want) I said there was a lot of OTHER evidence to look at that wouldn't be available from analyzing images found on the internet: chemical analysis Sarin residues (stabilizers and contaminants are reliable indicators of manufacture), the remainders of shells, testimony from on the ground, electronic intel, etc etc. AT THE TIME I questioned whether one shell couldn't have been obtained by surreptitious means. AT THE TIME I posted several pictures of the child-victims, which showed the same dead children posed in different locations, and an indication that at least one of the "dead children" was actually just sedated (a dead child being given an injection?) ... indicating that - while the attack was real- the consequences were being stage-managed for Twitter by the terrorists in that area. As it turns out, it's looking more and more like Turkey smuggled the Sarin in, using its terrorist-allies on the ground.
Bellingcrap's claim that Russia manipulated MH17 satellite imagery using Photoshop. Well, professional image analysts say that's a stupid thing to say, because the meta-info in the file would appear even if Russia simply added explanatory test. Here is what Jens Kriese, a German professional image analyst, said
Quote:
That’s an erroneous interpretation. They claim that the metadata shows that the images were processed using Photoshop. Based on that they are concluding it was the clouds that were likely added in order to conceal something. The truth is that the indication of Photoshop in the metadata doesn’t prove anything. Of course the Russians had to use some sort of program in order to process the satellite image for the presentation. They added frames and text blocks in order to explain it to the public. The artifacts which have been identified could be a product of that — or also a product of saving multiple times in JPG format.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Bellingcat says its findings are based on the use of the analysis tool FotoForensic.com, a website.
Kriese: And its founder Neal Krawetz also distanced himself from Bellingcat’s conclusions on Twitter. He described it as a good example of “how to not do image analysis.” What Bellingcat is doing is nothing more than reading tea leaves. Error Level Analysis is a method used by hobbyists.
I'm going to credit Bellingcrap's Higgins with an overabundance of enthusiastic prejudice, not outright deceit. But these MAJOR failures (and there are more than these two) should make one put on gloves and install a shitscreen whenever dealing with Bellingcrap's stream of propaganda. But KPO doesn't classify Bellingcrap's website as "propaganda" because it&#
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to be pellucidly clear about who said what, and that I've been consistent with KPO
Quote:
SO, you go to a website and you see that they post something that strikes you as being "pro-Hitler", and because they post some items that you don't agree with, you reject everything else they write.- SIGNY
Err, yes...? What do you do when you see something pro-Hitler on a website? Well I guess we know that, you post something from that website on these boards. But what goes through your mind when you see that source praising the Nazis? It doesn't bother you? - KPO
So, you go to a website and you find some articles that contain errors of fact, or which consistently portray an event from a POV, or publish outright lies ... and then you judge (some) authors ... or perhaps the entire website ... to be so contaminated by ideology as to be avoided at all costs. (I guess because it would smirch your intellectual purity?)
Well, I can point to the NYT (which repeatedly and to this day publishes demonstrable lies) and the BBC (which, if nothing else, is biased towards NATO) and bellingcat (which has made such serious errors in regards to both the Syrian gas attack and image analysis of Ukraine as to negate their own conclusions) ... what am I supposed to do, using YOUR yardstick?
Stop reading them? According to you, I should. That's what YOU would do, if you were at all even-handed about your treatment of information sources.
What you fail recognize, apparently, is that ALL information is ideological. ALL media, ALL websites, ALL publications (even scientific ones) start out with assumptions and a specific position from which they view the world. ALL information is limited/ selected, if only by lack of knowledge. Whether it is a specific eyewitness POV (Twitter) or compilation of eyewitnesses (bellingcat) or formal publication (BBC, NYT) or even historical investigation ....
Every single piece of information has already been preselected by the presenter.
(And BTW- eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable, as are human memories.)
You say that you "know" this, and yet you continue to treat some sources as "suspect" and other sources as sacrosanct (and rely on, and quote liberally and unreservedly, as if they were truth) when in reality you should treat all information with suspicion.
I read a book, a long time ago, called "Man Against Myth" ("It is an instructive, amusing and courageous book whose success is most desirable in public interest."-Albert Einstein) and the point the author makes ... and the point that I have been trying to make over and over .... and apparently failing spectacularly ... is that everyone views the world thru tinted lenses. EVERYONE. The very beginning of the book makes a passionate case for seeing those tints which color our views, and that the hardest myths to uncover are those which are the most comprehensive... because, being universal, they're the hardest to identify.
It's easy for us to see the myths behind Russian publications (Well, maybe not so much for you, since you refuse to read them!) but ... what are the assumptions and myths behind the BBC? What are the myths behind bellingcat? The NYT? Please don't tell me there are none, because there are, and I've pointed out some in this thread already.
I'll go further with bellingcat, because I've pointed out this before in the Syrian gas attack: Images are only PART of the story. They need to be, among other things, reliably authenticated and analyzed, because contending sides are all adept at contaminating the twittersphere, to the point of staging events. There is forensic on-the ground physical evidence ... chemical weapons have trace impurities and stabilizers which reliably rule out manufacturers. There are the physical shells. There is electronic intel. Doctor's exams. Eyewitness testimony to sights, sounds, smells. May I repeat that I pointed this out AT THE TIME?
Bellingcat's assumption - it's foundaNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME