Arguments

How many people go online to sites with comments sections? I bet a lot of people do and in many cases this is another form of psychological conditioning to create arguments among people and to get them arguing over things they know little about, but it has a function or two.

Look at any newspaper and they have a comments section and many people post their comments and in many cases people are scathing about someone in the article they are commenting on, but why? they design them this way by presenting only one side of a story and presenting it in a way using inferrence and suggestion and by alluding to something they are portraying an individual in any story in the worst possible light without directly making a claim against them by the clever use of words, in any case bought against them they can show they suggested something and didn't actually say it.
Posters on the site read a misleading and spurious story and comment on it, usually in the worst possible way and with only one side of a highly manipulated story full of inference and suggestion; but how often do they bother to try to find out the other side of the story or even look at the way the article is written and see through the spurious language reporters use and see through the drivel they post and see it for what it is.

Look at an article closely for yourselves and you will notice claims such as "a source confirmed" which means they made it up and they hide behind the freedom of the press argument, or "in a statement issued by" which means they are lazy and accept a written claim by someone who is willing to make a claim against somebody and not be answerable for that claim and accept it as fact without speaking to the other party/parties involved, or "we have heard from" which means they are making a claim by proxy and passing the blame onto someone else. These are just a few examples and if you look closely you will find many more for yourselves.

There is a hidden agenda at work here and this is psychological profiling by any number of people and its no secret that certain social networking sites are constantly monitored by numerous authorities and corporations alike and when an argument is created people reveal a lot of information about themselves and over a period of time this information can be gathered and collated to form a realistic picture of someone, and instead of someone such as the police getting a warrant they will use information they have gathered from a social networking site and have a paid psychologist give their opinion which always biases the police as they are paying them.
Imagine a simple scenario, someone studies politics and has a lot of books and research into political parties in their property and the police build up a picture of them and monitor their internet usage while they are researching something such as Combat 18, allegedly a part of the BNP, and they suspect them of a crime, they go to get a warrant and supply some vague excuse which would not normally see a warrant being granted, they then use Combat 18 as this is often enough to sway a judge into signing a spurious warrant they would normally decline. They produce a lot of internet traffic showing someone doing little more than researching political parties, but they only produce the paperwork showing research into Combat 18 and nothing else they have researched and they portray it as something having sympathy with Combat 18 which is a totally unfair representation.

How many times have we all heard the police say "we raided a property at ******* today and found a book about Nazis and Combat 18 in the premises", they mention nothing about any books relating to the Labour, Conservative, green, or any other political parties they find there as its all about misleading the public; they never mention the Mills and Boon books they find as it cannot be manipulated into a contentious issue.
We could go even further and use an avid sword collector as an example, sword collector goes about his lawful business and you get one of those plods who is intent on stopping his vehicle even though they have no reasonable cause to stop his vehicle, but they are going to stop it anyway as they think they are the police; information comes back that they have reasonable suspicion that he may be armed and carrying a weapon, another play on words as they know he is an avid sword collector and some of these can cost £thousands. Note the wording here, suspicion of being armed and NOT he is a collector of swords, their version has more impact and police can use this to mobilise a firearms unit, use all sorts of force against him and any court will back the police every time, and the guy in question may only be coming back from friends.

Ask yourself why Government fund large internet projects and not corporations, ask yourself why Government have funded numerous telephone masts and not the mobile phone companies, and this is for good reason, the young are being indoctrinated into using mobile networks and giving every detail of their lives away and Government dont need warrants to ccess their information as they can simply intercept all the information in real time as any transmission can be intercepted easily and cheaply and they dont have to spend time and money producing evidence to put before a judge with the possibility of it being refused.
People voluntarily give away their information and the conditions are in place for them to do it.

Good observations there. A site such as this can give great examples of helpful, wise and peaceful communication. Indeed it already does, and will continue, I hope, to do so.