Credibility reviews and Gang Stalking terms.

I think someone needed a little bit of free publicity so here it is. Eleanor White dropped by one of my blogs and left a comment. This post is in response to the comment that was left. I don't want to spend too much time on this, but as I said before, I felt this issue had gone on long enough and recently choose to intervene.

[quote]I'm sorry the author of the "gang" stalking web sites and e-book can't seem to grasp why I object to the term "gang" stalking. I thought my reviews explained that pretty clearly.[/quote]


Eleanor, I appreciate that you, object to the use of the term. I appreciate that you and those working towards the same goal as you, want to have people discontinue the use of the term Gang Stalking.

I disagree with this. I think if you and yours wish to use the term, then please use the term for your activism. You are deterring the efforts of others, others who have had success with the term.

I have pointed out that some use the term Community Mobbing, Community Harassment, and several others to describe the same thing, and I think that is fine, as long as they get the correct message across to the audience.



[quote]I've been an activist for 13 years, and during three of those years, I spent some time almost every day right out in the street, discussing the crime of organized stalking and electronic harassment with the public.[/quote]


That's great Eleanor, I have spent just under three years and I have been using the term Gang Stalking, and that has worked just fine for me and several others. If this term does not work for you, then I appreciate this. However by telling others that the preferred term is Organised Stalking, you are interfering with the rights of others to use the terms they prefer. I have now seen others on the Internet telling others that they have to use Organised Stalking now, and that is not correct or accurate.

If this is the term you prefer, then great. I think it's wonderful that you and some of yours wish to use the term. I think that there is more than enough room in the Targeted Individual community for a variety of terms.




[quote]I tried a number of terms. Other anti-OS activists have also tried a number of terms.

With "gang" stalking, I found that the mind of my listener immediately and consistently got the image that I was talking about being stalked by some sort of ordinary gang, such as race gang, youth gang, biker gang, or Mafia.[/quote]

Great Eleanor, I don't know what your demographics are, and I don't know who you come across in your activism.
Eg. Someone coming across someone from the Cointelpro era might wish to use that term. Someone coming across a demographic that is riddled with the stop snitching, informant culture, might wish to use another term, and coming across people from Eastern Europe, I find reference to Stasi to work a bit better.
I encounter a lot of younger people, I also encounter a lot of cultural diversity and I use the term that best suits the situation. Not every term will work for every person, so I use what's appropriate and make sure that the right concept is getting across. I adapt to the situation and that works for me, because of who I am.

Maybe organised stalking worked for you, because of who you were and the types of people that you came across.


[quote]That is clearly the WRONG picture of current day organized stalking groups.[/quote]

The way you do it, yes. But for some of the demographics that I reach it's not. There are people that like the slang Gang Stalking, and it works with some demographics. The ones that will get this culturally accepted as other methods have not worked as well. So why not work all angles? What's the reason for trying to get rid of the term that has been a success for three years, and starting from scratch. It's the same as if we tried to get rid of the term Targeted Individuals, it would just destroy those efforts.




[quote]I have tried "vigilante stalking" too. That worked to some degree, but didn't seem to paint a really clear picture in the minds of my listeners.[/quote]

Again Eleanor it's how you present it, and who is presenting it. It's all based on who the activist is, and the demographics that you try to reach, what works for one, does not work for another. If you look across the net, the term has reach a variety of groups, they are familiar with the term and they use it. I refuse to see that effort killed because you have a preferred term.

I have a preferred goal of getting this exposed, and I think using whatever terms work, to get the concept across. I could not use the term vigilante stalking with a straight face, because I hate the term, add all the false disinformation bs that goes with it. Another person whoever could use the term with no discomfort and probably over 85-95% success rate.

I say give them a bunch of terms. Having reviewed discussions about this, and the conversations people get up to, I see some refer to it as Cointelpro again, others as Stasi, let people use what they want to use, as long as the end message is the same, more or less and the concept get's across, because exposure is the key.

In the modern day world Eleanor, it's not the up to down effect that get terms introduced into society, it's often the other way around. The terms start at a ground level, or urban level, gain popularity and go from there, that is the trend I am seeing with other terms and concepts that have become popularised and mainstream, and that is the angle that I am using.

Please don't take this the wrong way Eleanor. You tend to be very old fashioned about certain things, and I like to take a modern approach, look for new ways to get things done, to reach and work with a modern audience. I like to use those methods and concepts, that works for me, and some others like me. This might not work for you, that's fine.



[quote]Then Lynn Troxel originated "organized" stalking. By FAR, that term brings the unaware listener to an accurate picture of the crime of OS, and does so quickly.[/quote]

It does not however. When I sought help, the terms and concept that worked best was community mobbing, because people have an idea of what mobbing is, and by saying it happens in the community, they got that. The same was true when I sought help at the other websites. Two of the mobbing sites based on the description I gave, immediately decided to add links to Gang Stalking websites, I emailed about 10-15 stalking sites, and they did not see the relevance to what happens to them. Think about that, those activists did not see the relevance or significance.



[quote]In the effort to first educate the public, and eventually get the crime stopped, I feel the term which creates an accurate picture of the crime, and does so quickly, is quite important to find and use. The unaware public is not interested in taking on "another headache" or another worry, and doesn't give anti-OS activists much in the way of attention span. Often just seconds.[/quote]

I think if you use the most accurate term and do not add the appropriate information this does no good. I have spoken to you before about the continued effort of letting people think this is vigilantes, or right wing extremists behind this, but you keep pushing David Lawson. Oddly enough.


[quote]This is why I speak out against "gang" stalking and promote "organized" stalking. Nothing more mysterious than that.[/quote]

I don't know if I believe that, but it does not matter. The point is what you and the others associated with this effort are doing is killing other efforts that have gone before. Where to really have maximum effectiveness, people should have a variety of terms at their arsenal to help with getting this exposed. Many hate the term organized stalking, and do not feel that it truly expresses what is happening to them. The stalking term vs the mobbing term for example. They don't feel that stalking even comes close to describing what is happening, and it takes the attention away from the meat and potatoes. I let people use what they want. I want to train people up to do their own thing, not be told what to do, and use. I do agree that uniformity is nice to have in some quarters, but I fully disagree in this one.


[quote]I also object to activism materials that state government is doing the stalking. We do not have evidence, as of today, which proves that. Such claims are part of the e-book "Bridging the Gap."[/quote]

Oddly enough, you were happy to support David Lawson and unsubstantiated claims of vigilante stalking, but you have a problem with this. You never had more than David Lawson claiming this was done by vigilante gangs, but you never objecting to misleading people down this path, but with so much proof that government is doing this you object.

We have Tim Rice telling us that they were doing 24/7 surveillance on Journalist and others.

We have the ACLU telling us about Fusion centers and what they are doing, and about people being put under investigations. That these people will be communicating in code.

We have a billion and one articles from the Uk press telling us about the covert surveillance that individuals are being placed under, and the tactics being used, which match ours in many cases.

I have posted a passage from a police training manual about how to handle informants, and the book even says that they use a one handed sign language.

Bob the lawyer some of you all hired has said this. The success that people have had with court cases mostly involve going after the government. I speak of Donald Friedman and the FOIA released, and Jesus Medoza and what he heard back from his case, that he has blogged about.

Not to mention the book the Buzzsaw, which show how journalist go through something similar.

Plus the history of Cointelpro and the Stasi.

With all this you were willing to put forward and support a theory and book, that had the potential to get targets in trouble, but you object to hard information.

The ebook in question, just like the hiddenevil.com, have you had a chance to review that site? http:www.TheHiddenEvil.com let me know what you think.
Have evidence to show that the government could be behind this.

I think the ebook in question that you are referring to, asks the question of why would the government do this to their own citizens, and the book answers the question. Do you want books, and material looking at the issue of Gang Stalking to leave this stuff out? That does not sound right to make. I get that you making unfounded accusations is not good, but that is not the case. The books back up their theories with current research. Including research from the ACLU on modern fusion centers.


[quote]There is nothing hidden or nefarious in my credibility reviews on:
[/quote]

When I fist say you and Kelly discussing this I thought oh my gosh, witch hunt. I left it as it was. I wondered how long it would be till my site and other legit sites made the witch hunt, but I left it as it was, because I knew it was coming, but I hoped the community would be smarter than that.

Those reviews are again, your opinion of what you think is good and bad, and you want others to mindlessly agree to this without thinking.

As per the email I sent you, requesting you remove my site, because I did not appreciate it there. I did not think that you had the right to label my site bogus, because you do not like alphabetical order. I did send you an email and you said if I changed the order of my listing, I might get approved, well you know what I think of that?

You are putting sites there for minor things, so instead of going after the people, these so called credibility reports allow you to go after their sites, which amounts to the same thing. You go after their sites, and then it's all done under the guise of what's best for the community. I really do care about this, because it's my life, and I do need to get this stopped. Joining the dark side is not an option for me.


Case in point. I will use my site but I think there are a few others on their that should not be there.


The so called credibility review says:


Eleanor White rating: BOGUS (trivializes the crime)
November 21, 2008

[quote]WEB SITE: http://www.gangstalkingworld.com/Techniques.html

SITE TITLE: Gang Stalking World

EW: This well-executed web site rates a BOGUS because it
misleads the visitor from the public into believing that
targets of organized stalking and electronic harassment are worrying about things that are trivial and not serious, and in fact common occurrences of every day life.[/quote]


The site misleads the visitors in what capacity? This is not the front page of the site, which is what people see.
Second of all, the page is in alphabetical order, because some of us who do research like it that way.

If this is your reason for calling a site bogus, how much good are these reviews actually doing for this community? Honestly, they are targeting some good sites, that could help people for minor things, which I believed was going to be the case all along.


[quote]Next notice the very first, most prominent technique this site describes. The first item is presumably the one that causes targets of organized stalking the most grief. It is listed as "Air Stalking." In other words, the site cries out against aircraft stalking targets on the ground!

That concern literally shouts "paranoia" to the world.[/quote]

No really Eleanor to the educated public who can think for themselves, this shouts alphabetical order, and I wont be changing this for anyone.

Oh yeah, the other thing about these so called credibitlity reviews when you and Kelly first cooked them up was that you were going to be reviewing specific pages or sections to say what could be impoved, or why it was or was not good, instead you have used the oppertunity to use the reviews to discredit websites in whole.

Youre reviews are not saying, I don't like websitex.com because of this page or this section, you are targeting the whole website, by picking one little section.

Eg. You primarily are picking on the techniques page for Gang Stalking World, and a picture or something, but using this to declear the whole site as bogus, notice the word you choose to use? Not Eleanor disapproves, but bogus, making people think the site has no credibility, which is not the case. It's just like if I did this, but used the word fraud, to describe some of your websites.

If you really were interested in anything other than a witch hunt, you would have also used better words, and reviewed the pages and listed the pages specifically and not attacked the full site.

You on your website

I think the picture of the militia guy that you have on your site, just does not work for me, for various reasons. I also think the section about Terri Schindler, on your site would give people the wrong message. I know it gave me the wrong message when I first started looking for stuff that could help.

You also have things about people's cats being tortured to death. Though I respect this, as part of the targeted individual community, are you kidding me, do you think a new site visitor might not think we are a little Lonnie for this?

I know when I first saw your site, no offense, but I was really put off, from your site and a couple of others, and stayed away from it for some time. I think your site has some good information, but you talk about giving the wrong impression. I am going to leave it at that, because I am not hear to bash your site.

If I like a site, I like to it and use that. I try to avoid bashing things, unless I think it will be detrimental to real targets, and then I take a stand.



I think if you have sites that you like, then create a website of good and approved information that you and yours can use. That's what I do, there are so many YouTube videos that I know are not good, but I don't attack those, the same way I don't for the most part out agents. I just try to point people to good sites or material I think will help them.



[quote]My only purpose is to assist targets in selecting the best materials for the fight to expose and stop organized stalking.

E W

[/quote]

With all due respect Eleanor, I do not feel that you are doing this with your credibility reviews, and i definitely don't feel that you are doing this with your members, telling people which terms they can use. It's not cool, and it's not right.

People should be able to use what they are comfortable with. This is very quickly becoming use the sites we say and the terms we say or be a pariah, and isn't the point that people are already segregated in one way, why should their blogs, websites, and materials be also treated the same way?

I don't think these are good, and when your members get called on this stuff, they accuse others of causing divisions in the community, but realistically, it's these reviews and your members telling people which terms to use that are causing some of the problems.

I do appreciate you dropping by, at this moment there is nothing else that I feel a need to add to this conversation, if there is anything else that you would like to add, I will be happy to have you post it.

So that those interested in this discussion can read it, I will post it on the blogs.


gangstalking


*Free advertising to none credible websites removed.*