http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=202189.0
If this were debated in court one could counter that many specialized groups use loaded language to deal with a specific subject matter. Particularly, laymen who are not highly educated.
Many 12 Step groups utilize a loaded language. This helps people identify specifics within the subject matter so that things can be identified more easily to thw addicts so then they may make the issues involved more manageable and under their control.
Being in recovery is often like working in an ER or other emergency situation type professions where there must be an communication scheme thats understood by fellow professionals quickly and efficiently.
Recovery is a battle. Yet its with something within the addict themselves thus there needs to be a language formed to address that and to connect the lone addict to the greater group of others going through the same process.
To render an out of control situation controllable.
Thus this is what Targets have done with our laymen's terms for what legally and officially mighr be referred to as war crimes harassment etc etc.
Also consider that many official and governing bodies do nor acknowledge Target's situations as valid or realistic-its not like lawyers who are expert in legalese are flocking to assist the TI community and represent us or even map out exactly whats going on, who's responsible or the proper legal and commonly accepted terms for what we experience.
Humans being creative and using language to explain the world around us by nature will create a set of terms to communicate. Thats all TIs have done-the isolated lab rats, refugees in a camp or an isolated community have set about to surviving in unknown territory. As humans have been doing throughout history.
The other issue I have with this is that using this term also leaves it open ended as to exactly who is behind these activities.
What actual proof do Targets have that it is indeed 'the government' thats responsible for perpetrating these crimes? Governments are usually complex entities. Which part specifically?
How do we determine exactly who is responsible? Also, this would take a paper trail of money or other things of value traded for services.
Claiming 'the government' is responsible might get you suspected of being delusional just as easily as claiming its 'gang stalking' in this society.
All TIs need do is clearly state that the term is a specialized one used by a community of people experiencing events outside the norm who have leads that certain parties are responsible yet have no concrete proof that could twist the legal system's arm and force officials to substantiate such claims to such activities.
In other words-if these f*ckers wanna play cat and mouse or play dead we can also do the same Why should they go around destroying people with unbelievable stealth (and resources) completely protected from being detected or brought to justice while TIs make spectacles of themselves?
TIs are only trying to congregate for safety and survival to protect themselves. This is naturally what humans do in such a scenario.
GS is the ultimate bullying on the playground by the principal's son and his friends, who the principal sent to begin with but will disavow all knowledge of the kid's actions.
The best many of us can do is huddle in a corner together and try to understand whats happening.
When this former fed offers to map out exactly what is going on, how it works and whos responsible (like he would have graphed out a complex crime gang in his former job) as well as provide a frickin glossary of terms more useful to us than the one we have now, then I will accept his warning and criticism as valid.
He did give us something to think about however.
I think by now seasoned TIs know that David Lawsons book is incorrect and have a fair yet vague idea as to who's responsible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems like Lawson wants to encourage targets to act out, when he suggests that police officers gangstalking a target are actually actors in uniform instead of real officers. Then, based on that, he suggests burning them by spilling coffee on them, or stepping on their feet. Luckily, most targets know that real law enforcement officers are in on "the act" (gangstalking), and they can range from local on up to state and even probably secret service agents protecting the president.
ReplyDeleteAround here, a guy I know is a cop, and while on duty he will do stupid stuff to get me to do something stupid to him, based on that fact that he knows I know him, and if he is insulting me, I will think of him on a personal friendship level rather than an official doing his duty, and assault him based on the fact that he is a "bad friend" trying to bully me. Ironically, consistent with what Lawson is trying to get targets to do, i.e., assault a cop on duty. This is a bad thing to do. I can see arguing your point against a cop who is doing stupid stuff, but attacking them physically is falling right into the hands of what the system wants target to do.
And sometimes they will have a gangstalker come in, and try to get me to react by suggesting that they are going to do something to me. Let me give you an example: a perp comes in, and asks the 2 people loitering there if they need her to "beat somebody up". And then she says she is thinking about kicking (someone) in the face. Yeah right, lol. I don't think perps are stupid enough to attack a TI, but I do know they like to suggest physical violence will happen to the target. I used to get that early Bush. And they are still at it! So it appears they aren't stopping their BS. Hey, if any perp is stupid enough to attack me, let them go ahead and try it and see what happens. And in those cases, it's best to have some footage of the incident. But then they never talk about the person directly anyhow, in order to deflect culpability. And this person seems a little mental, but not completely. Just a little out of touch with reality.
Does the system really send out mildly mentally ill operatives to do their dirty work?