The letter, slightly altered with permission...
Morning all!
I think it's probably that they are worried about the defamation case - goldnkiwi wasn't involved in that, and is probably being used. And just the time of year - Christmas to occupy their minds. I doubt that they have changed their minds!
Incidentally, did you notice that thread nina_s started about Assange? saying he was an internet terrorist? That amused me: what Assange did was different only in degree from what that lot did with revealing suppressed evidence etc. It seems to me that what is common to that group is a (to my mind) over-inflated respect for authority: the authority of the Police. And that their level of thinking is such that their authority needs to be personified in some way - so again, police, government ministers (rather than the abstract concept of 'justice'). That would go along with their targetting on individuals (Joe, Reed, other posters) rather than actually arguing the more abstract concepts of the evidence. It would also be consistent with their disparagement of the Privy Council as English ('Kiwis can do it themselves'), or, if not disparaging them, trying to distort the ruling to support their case. If I'm right, then the only argument that will ever work with them is the 'my Dad's bigger than your Dad' type - which is why they keep on about 'the majority'. Personally, if I believe something, it doesn't matter whether I'm the only person to believe it - what other people believe has no relevance except to make me double check my information and assumptions.
But it seems to me that this lends a clue as to where you might effectively go with your thoughts: to highlight their undermining of the police (by continually drawing attention to the incompetent investigation), of the Minister (by making it clear they don't trust the Cabinet to make a proper decision), of Crown Law (by questioning the way the case was prosecuted), of the witnesses such as Doyle and Weir (by drawing attention to the fact that they were not, in the end, credible). That is, if you can make a case for how they are actually attacking their own side. If you use Mike Stockdale and Taylor to illustrate this, they might have pressure put on them to shut up.
To borrow from above again in explanation as to why the sisters feel entitled to stalk and threaten....'And that their level of thinking is such that their authority needs to be personified in some way - so again, police, government ministers (rather than the abstract concept of 'justice'). That would go along with their targetting on individuals (Joe, Reed, other posters) rather than actually arguing the more abstract concepts of the evidence.'....A very valid point, the 'need' to show their own 'authority' of being 'right' in an ordered society of which they are pivotal and important, knowledgeable and so forth. It takes very little for those labouring under such a structured (whilst at the same time being fractured) mindset to see that they are 'allowed' to lead among the lessor mortals and take a stick to them as required. The fact that the sisters don't see such actions as law breaking but rather an enforcement of what is right and proper according to their own frailties and fears is for them a complex precipice in ever understanding themselves. They are safer being haters of a type that select easy and 'populist' targets as, according to the correspondence above describing nina_s, starting a particular type of thread that attacks wikileaks for the very same thing which she and the sisters did - leaked suppressed evidence.
But it goes further, because the obooks and nina_s of the world use terms such as 'project' when accusing others of what they actually do themselves. This is their complete failure in understanding the human condition, their own condition, because they always project away and don't, from fear, absorb. In effect they are lost to change or improvement through their own fears and need to project from themselves and onto others that which they don't like about themselves. They are fear-filled people but without the courage to understand what their 'projections' may do to others, indeed they resolve any misgivings or doubts that they may have about what they are doing by their protective shield of being 'superior.'
Therefore they see nothing inconsistent in being 'authority respectful' or on the other hand attacking authority when their own projections or expectations are not filled. They can't for example say, well I never knew about the blood in the barrel or that on Robin's shoe and therefore change my mind, instead they attack the police, the Jury, the Court because the verdict wasn't in accordance with their opinion. In some ways, it is sad to some degree, but even that would never mitigate the harm they are so willing to cause and be oblivious to from the protection of their own fractured personalities.
I'll end with a couple of old favourites... 'what about the family, the victims' then the procedure of running all the victims down. And another,... David lied when he said this or that, turning later to using.... David said.. as proof of something. Twisted sisters was the most appropriate phrase for that lot.
No comments:
Post a Comment