|
by Senor Barborito 03/18/2003, 9:27pm PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Diotallevi wrote:
Key Words: operation northwoods pentagon cia
Link: The National Security Archive
Synopsis: Though many internet conspiracy losers will insist otherwise, there is no mention anywhere in the text of the Northwoods document of killing or even harming any US citizens. It *IS* a plan to fabricate a pretext for war with Cuba in 1962, and one would think that would be fucked-up enough to satisfy everyone. However, too good to be true "facts" are both more memorable, and more useful in an argument.
It should further be noted that it was only a plan, it was never acted on, and yes, the government/military makes plans for all kinds of things they don't intend to do anytime soon.
Just trying to help.
I'm expressly NOT asking you that as an admin, btw. However, as another poster on this forum, I am requesting it. If necessary, I'll move the journal to an off-caltrops page and simply post every time I update.
I'd really rather not, though, and I think you're mature enough to understand that what I'm requesting is pretty reasonable - much like asking you not to post with my name. One thing I will ask of you is whether or not you would be agreeable with one of the admins (either ES or Barborito-as-admin) changing a single letter of your post title (say, to make it read Bardorito's) to escape parsing problems in the future.
I wouldn't have even minded terribly if not for your synopsis being an opinion ('internet conspiracy losers') and not a condensed version of the contents of the link (not to mention too long), nor if you had followed the proper formatting for the journal. See, at some point I want to run a parser against this forum and move the whole thing into another format, possibly a site. The Operation Northwoods docs are absolutely perfect material because while they aren't worthy of biting off your fingertips and screaming 'THE GOVERNMENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR 9/11!', they are pretty goddamned sinister shit nonetheless, and that's exactly what I'm looking for - stuff that got mentioned somewhere in the mainstream media but was conveniently forgotten precisely because it was too ugly. Just please don't use my name anymore than you would post with my name in the author field.
I would like to say that I'm eager to see what other people have to contribute to this forum because I'm only one person and I don't see everything sinister by a very long shot. The proper formatting is here:
Key Words:
Link:
Synopsis:
Key Quotes:
Source:
Spotted:
Author:
The first field should be useful for someone running a search engine and trying to find your post (just a series of space delimited entry-specific terms), the link should be to a relatively mainstream source and not Jack Krazzy's Evil Government Website (TOOTHPASTE IS EVIL!!!), the synopsis should be a short 1-2 sentence summary of the article stated in a strictly factual manner, key quotes should be a series of some of the more relevent bits of the article, source should be both the mainstream publisher and any sources they used, spotted should be when you saw it (month#, day# both with the appropriate number of digits and year with the last two digits) and author is pretty damned obvious.
If enough people contribute meaningfully, I'll happily start a little slashdotesque (in the reader-contrib editor-selected) site around it (and move it out of the forum) otherwise I'll continue to just use it in order to keep all the rather rather surprising 'no, actually they DID do that' links I need in one place.
Thanks,
--SB |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Barborito's Journal Of References #8 - Operation Northwoods by Diotallevi 03/18/2003, 8:52pm PST 
Please don't call your posts 'Barborito's Journal' in the future, thanks by Senor Barborito 03/18/2003, 9:27pm PST 
I still don't see how this is a problem by Entropy Stew 03/18/2003, 9:59pm PST 
Re: I still don't see how this is a problem by SENOR MOTHERFUCKING BARBORITO 03/18/2003, 10:23pm PST 
Excellent, more respec^H^H^H^H rules. by Fussbett 03/19/2003, 3:28am PST 
Do you see the part where I'm just saying this as a poster, not admin? U = LOSE by SB 03/19/2003, 3:35am PST 
Yeah, duh by I need clarification 03/19/2003, 4:03am PST 
Re: Excellent, more respec^H^H^H^H rules. by up with pod people 03/19/2003, 3:41am PST 
GODDAMNIT by Senor Barborito 03/19/2003, 3:54am PST 
EXCEPT FOR YOU TO OCCASIONALLY REMEMBER THEM WHEN SHE GIVES THEM -nt- by Bill Dungsroman 03/19/2003, 11:51am PST 
Barborito's Journal of References #8a - I am a pointy-headed clown by Diotallevi 03/19/2003, 8:07pm PST 
Re: Barborito's Journal Of References #8 - Operation Northwoods by Zebco Fuckface 03/19/2003, 5:27am PST 
Queer backpedling/asskissing. by Motherhead 03/19/2003, 6:33am PST 
|
|