You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

boutfiddy ago

I respectfully disagree. He definitely has intel background and has time in the trenches disseminating volumes of information and composing briefs.

He just thinks extemporaneously and writes vigorously. I do not agree with much of what he thinks, but he comes from a genuine place and is just trying to assert his voice in this very important time in history.

Blacksmith21 ago

I appreciate constructive criticism and functioning as a sounding board. This ^ is what we are supposed to do, not call each other niggerfagkikes.

Food for thought:

1) NR is a SHITTY writer. Stream of consciousness. Nothing academic. Nothing wrong with that, but don't confuse quantity over quality?

2) What makes you think he comes form a "genuine" place? Wasn't the same thought of AJ, Corsi, and others? Genuine?

3) Of course NR is trying to assert their voice. Isn't that what everyone is doing right now? Just because one is loud, doesn't mean they are right.

4) What makes you say "He definitely has intel background"?

boutfiddy ago

1) Agreed, NR is a shitty writer. He just hammers away with little structure. More regarding this on 4) below.

2) His intonation is consistent. Very raw as he is formulating his opinions as he writes. AJ is/was just a sensationalist shill. Same could be said of Limbaugh, but he did not capitalize enough on his fame. Corsi is more complex.

3) Agreed.

4) The pattern of his writing. It is staccato. The dissemination of sensitive information has to be sharp and fast, hence his disdain for Carters' work. Imagine running alongside brass or a suit, trying to convey as much as possible in short order. Keeping pace going down a hall into a boardroom or across a tarmac into a plane or chopper.

NeonRevolt ago

1) I don't force anyone to read what I write. If they think they can do better elsewhere, they have always been free to tune out. I also intentionally keep thing very basic, because Q is often very complex. I can wax academic with the best of them, but I'm not trying to write a PhD thesis. For this medium, and this subject matter, it's better if I just keep things at a very easy reading level.

2) I follow the drops live, but sitting down to write about them forces me to try and explain what I think I have a handle on. It's like the old saying: you don't truly understand something until you can explain it to someone else.

3) I get loud, yes. This tends to make the weaker among us uncomfortable, especially if they don't like me, or have decided I'm a shill (because they don't know understand and know what a whois page looks like).

4) I don't have an intel background. I have a screenwriting background, and I've said this many times. Read the original Alien script, and it looks like haiku half the time, it's so sparse. It's a style I've adapted in my own work, as it forces expediency. It has the side-benefit of keeping things moving, and readers don't get bogged down. You get a rhythm going.

It's actually much harder to write with few words, because you have be direct, say what you mean, and own your words, than it is to keep needlessly expanding your sentences, and waffling around intended meaning.

boutfiddy ago

ok, so I understand why you get defensive about your writing. Maybe you are good with dialogue, but you really are a shitty writer.

I did mistake you for an analyst asset. You have a talent for this.

You are correct. It is much harder to write with few words. This is my talent and experience.

boutfiddy ago

Wow! Great retort!