How do you change the perception?

[Ron Humphrey]

Repetition in refutation while supporting a polarized position as you have done BILL does not empower discussion. Simply repeating and not providing clarifying information rarely will illuminate that which is not understood. Further simple refutation through statements of polarization also rarely provide the foundations for understanding.

As an example you castigate my commentary in regards to dialog through statements of absurdity "Billions of dollars", and yet dialog can between the sender and receiver, or among multiple receivers of a message. You burn discussion in the flames of absurdity. Further corroboration of evidence from tainted sources or sources encumbered by political ideology rarely informs discussion it merely inflames passions and kills reason.

Your commentary reminds me of an information operation ran by Dr. Fred Cohen against subscribers of his information warfare discussion list. In violation of about every independent research board rule I know of. The people within the discussion were unaware of the reasons or content of commentary and the goals of some participants. Taking action against the unsuspecting for any reason in the pursuit of science has a tendency to taint the science.

I imagine forums like this do provide an excellent resource for recruitment to like minded individuals in first world countries. There might be a few people around who have made substantial scholarly efforts towards proving those methods even here on this forum. You have yet to make a substantive case BILL for similar activities in third world countries. I am deeply interested in any realistic or untainted corroborating evidence you might suggest or produce in regards to cyber-warfare or command, control, coordination, communication utilizing information technology (C4IT) within third world countries by terrorist entities.

remind me not to read your posts too much because my supply of advil is running exceedingly low