Your risk value assesment is correct in the latter case and I'm sure, as you point out, that a similar judgment happened somewhere in the US halls of power.
However, your assumptions about the first case are wrong because you assume the same negative attitude as the propagandists you dislike. I know you think you're refuting them and defending the integrity of the mass. That is a mistake. Good propagandists, like the ones who sell you coca-cola, and, if you dislike corporations, the same ones who sell you the alternative, they know that it's not about fooling all of the people all of the time, just the right people at the right time. They don't despise people for their obstinance, rather they love the courtship.
I can demonstrate all the ways in which both you, individual, and the mass of people, are susceptible. It's really beautiful, but I can't divulge all my secrets for free.
Heres the same story from a corporate US mega-media source, the warm, familiar and friendly CBS. Of course they're late on it, but better late than never.
It didn't hurt the first time either. I lament only the shoddy execution, not the sentiment. But, I'll bet you they got this much right: no way that it will be traced back to the current administration.
It didn't hurt the first time either. I lament only the shoddy execution, not the sentiment. But, I'll bet you they got this much right: no way that it will be traced back to the current administration.
Writing style was also a tip-off for Timothy Deaconson, who thought the letter attributed to his son, Pfc. Nick Deaconson of Buckley, W. Va., was unusual but nonetheless telephoned him to congratulate him on getting his letter printed in the paper.
"When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said: 'What letter?'"
Illegal or not, how could this possibly be described as brilliant? 'Pitifully transparent' or 'desperate' would be far more appropriate.
Only because the effort was so pathetic. Rather than use formula letters, it would have been more effective to embedd an actual troop somewhere semi-safe and work out a campaign behind him/her. Perhaps use two/three troops in a similar capacity. But the channels of dissemination only really require the right quality, not quantity. One hero could ultimately be more effective than dozens of such letters. Easier to create and control.
I'm not sure I follow you...d'you mean invent or exaggerate a series of events around a soldier that would cause him to be hailed as a hero back home? Or just have a single soldier or small group of soldiers that are employed in a letter writing campaign?
Comments
However, your assumptions about the first case are wrong because you assume the same negative attitude as the propagandists you dislike. I know you think you're refuting them and defending the integrity of the mass. That is a mistake. Good propagandists, like the ones who sell you coca-cola, and, if you dislike corporations, the same ones who sell you the alternative, they know that it's not about fooling all of the people all of the time, just the right people at the right time. They don't despise people for their obstinance, rather they love the courtship.
I can demonstrate all the ways in which both you, individual, and the mass of people, are susceptible. It's really beautiful, but I can't divulge all my secrets for free.
Originally posted by Matsu
[B]Your sources tend to stink like a horse's ass,
Heres the same story from a corporate US mega-media source, the warm, familiar and friendly CBS. Of course they're late on it, but better late than never.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in577716.shtml
Does that hurt a little less?
Originally posted by Matsu
It didn't hurt the first time either. I lament only the shoddy execution, not the sentiment. But, I'll bet you they got this much right: no way that it will be traced back to the current administration.
aha....now we're in agreement!
Writing style was also a tip-off for Timothy Deaconson, who thought the letter attributed to his son, Pfc. Nick Deaconson of Buckley, W. Va., was unusual but nonetheless telephoned him to congratulate him on getting his letter printed in the paper.
"When I told him he wrote such a good letter, he said: 'What letter?'"
Illegal or not, how could this possibly be described as brilliant? 'Pitifully transparent' or 'desperate' would be far more appropriate.