"Will you walk into my parlor?" said the spider to the fly;
"'Tis the prettiest little parlor that ever you may spy.
The way into my parlor is up a winding stair,
And I have many curious things to show when you are there."
"Oh no, no," said the little fly; "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again.""I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high.
Well you rest upon my little bed?" said the spider to the fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest a while, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
"Oh no, no," said the little fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again who sleep upon your bed!"Said the cunning spider to the fly: "Dear friend, what can I do
To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome - will you please to take a slice?
"Oh no, no," said the little fly; "kind sir, that cannot be:
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!""Sweet creature!" said the spider, "you're witty and you're wise;
How handsome are your gauzy wings; how brilliant are your eyes!
I have a little looking-glass upon my parlor shelf;
If you'd step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you're pleased to say,
And, bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."The spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready to dine upon the fly;
Then came out to his door again and merrily did sing:
"Come hither, hither, pretty fly, with pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple; there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer grew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes and green and purple hue,
Thinking only of her crested head. Poor, foolish thing! at last
Up jumped the cunning spider, and fiercely held her fast;
He dragged her up his winding stair, into the dismal den -
Within his little parlor - but she ne'er came out again!And now, dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words I pray you ne'er give heed;
Unto an evil counselor close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale of the spider and the fly.by Mary Howitt
In any event, there are all these good and decent people there who have met each other online, formed online friendships, enjoyed companionship and discussions, and now they are feeling a bit upset to consider the idea that it has all been a play for control of their minds. I don't blame them one bit.
What is interesting is to notice, as I do by reading the mail, that quite a few of them are learning how to think as a result of this experience. The following is combined from several emails received yesterday and today. All the people who are writing to me ask that their identities be concealed because they don't want to be banned and lose out on talking to their friends.
Dear Ark and Laura,When you go to ATS on the very very top of the page are "tabs" to go between different sections of the overall site. The "ATS Board" tab leads to the main forum where in large, bold letters on top it now says the word "COINTELPRO" - that's a link to a new thread by SkepticOverlord. [...]
There is now a pretty slick and rather transparent manipulation by SkepticOverlord in that thread. There are several statements he makes that reveal his true self.
Quote from SkepticOverlord: "Because [CatHerder's Article] debunks a popular conspiracy theory, the knee-jerk reaction of many is that "AboveTopSecret.com must be COINTELPRO!"Now wait a minute! Didn't he just set up a whole project to "focus" on finding the "truth" by focusing on certain select pieces of evidence?? Didn't he write to you "The more we can assemble a balanced team of experienced contributors, the more change we have to obtain a mutually agreed degree of truth"??
If so, then why would he say that CatHerder's article *debunked* a popular conspiracy theory? I thought that was what this upcoming debate was supposed to try to resolve?
Now, let me stop here and insert a quote from another correspondent that I already published that is relevant to this issue also:
...they were constantly referring to "our material" and "our work", but when the acronym "ATS" was used in the title of a thread on their website, they got upset and said the article by CatHerder has nothing to do with ATS in any way, that it was purely a work of just a member on ATS, so it should not in any way be associated with ATS.Fine, but if it IS just one member's opinion with no association to ATS, why did they put it on the front page of ATS and keep it there as the only thing on the front page that has not changed for over a year? And as SkepticOverlord constantly repeats in his posts that he wants a "balanced" view on ATS, yet never ever has he put a link on the ATS front page to ANOTHER article that may give a different view from CatHerder's analysis - is that balanced?
Hmmm... yes, it does seem that SkepticOverlord is slithering around like mercury...
It is very sneaky and dishonest of SkepticOverlord to suggest that the only reason ATS has been suspected of running COINTELPRO is simply because an article on ATS debunks a popular conspiracy theory! That is, by no means, the whole thing. But, by making this "emotional" claim, he makes the suggestion appear entirely irrational panders to his audience for pity.
Ah, yes! The "poor pitiful me, I'm just a good guy doing my job for all of YOUUUU, and look at the abuse I'm taking!" As Martha Stout, Ph.D. writes:
"Question your tendency to pity too easily. Respect should be reserved for the kind and the morally courageous. Pity is another socially valuable response, and should be reserved for innocent people who are in genuine pain or who have fallen on misfortune. If, instead, you find yourself often pitying someone who consistently hurts you or other people, and who actively campaigns for your sympathy, the chances are close to one hundred percent that you are dealing with a psychopath."
What is so interesting is that SkepticOverlord just leaves out the actual reason that ATS came under suspicion which was the specific manner in which the article by CatHerder was used to attempt to debunk the no-plane at the Pentagon theory, the slippery and manipulative way the article went about this, and then, the following discussions where the ATS administrators used emotional manipulation to make anyone who questioned the conclusions of CatHerder's article feel guilty of doing so. As another correspondent wrote:
My conclusion is that when it suits them, they disassociate themselves from the material and point the finger at just "some member's personal opinion". But then, at their whim at other times, they claim it as their own. This is a curious inconsistency.
Well, one tactic today, another tactic tomorrow.
Quote from SkepticOverlord: "The real issue here is the truth, and finding a path that leads us to it. No one ever discovers any truths by sticking to one side of an issue."Yet on page 1 of the original "Pentagon 911: CatHerder's analysis under critical scrutiny" thread, he said: "To me, there can be no doubt about what hit the Pentagon."
In that remark, did he not unequivocally "stick" to one side of the issue? Together with his above "established fact" that CatHerder actually DID debunk the conspiracy theory (without question), it seems the real issue for SkepticOverlord is NOT the truth after all.
Quote from SkepticOverlord: "Through a thoughtful, balanced, and sometimes critical analysis of "conspiracy theory" topics, we hope to be able to toss aside that which is not a conspiracy, so that energies can be spent on that which is."So since his mind is already made up as seen from his own words above, it is rather clear that he simply wants to "toss aside" the question of what really hit the Pentagon, because to him it is "not a conspiracy", since he has NO DOUBT that he knows "exactly what hit the pentagon", period. He's calling for critical analysis, but the question is, why is he only SOMETIMES critical? It seems that the question of what hit the Pentagon falls into one of those "uncritical" times!
But why? What's so special about THAT question that so much effort is spent by the ATS administration and others to focus on any other part of 911 - EXCEPT that one?
They claim it is because it is not a "real conspiracy", that there is no doubt what hit the Pentagon, that it is SO obvious and clear as day that they are trying to save all of us ATS forum members from ourselves by preventing us from wasting our precious energy on such obvious non-conspiracies.
That must be it. And the government is trying to stifle all private investigation of 911 because it is SO OBVIOUS who is responsible for 911 that the government just feels terrible that poor ignorant private people are wasting their precious energy on such silly non-conspiracies.
Yup. That MUST be it!
