Talk:Targeted Individuals/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 11 November 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

Randy Quaid[edit]

In my research I've run across implications that Randy Quaid is one of these freaks. Anyone who wants to look further into that, please do so. Since he's a living person with deep pockets we'd want to be sure before stating it as a fact.---Mona- (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Deep pockets is a strong word for what randys situation is. He definitely counts as one of these types though. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 20:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
You don't think he has significant financial resources to pay for lawyers?---Mona- (talk) 22:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't think his pockets are as deep as you think. I seem to recall him filing for bankruptcy along with a flight to Canada to avoid debt collectors. He seems like a full on nut, which tends to limit ones fiscal responsibility, regardless of previous income levels.--Petey Plane (talk) 18:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I already put Quaid on the Illuminati page for his "Hollywood Star Whackers" nuttery. Feel free to copy or adapt to this page. Bongolian (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
By complete coincidence, I recently read the 2011 Vanity Fair piece *shakes head*. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said, a footnote. And I didn't say "only rely on mainstream sources." I myself did not. But, I take my general understanding of what TIS are about from main outlets. Should the summary also include astrology, reincarnation, and the gnostic gospels? Cuz that's all at your linked site as well.---Mona- (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I liked that you dup up Quaid, Mona. And yes - the article will atleast mention everything that the TIs believe. It's an article on them, on what they claim repeatedly, and we'll catalogue it, we'll analyze it, and we'll refute it, all the while providing tons of internal links to our other pages, making this the opposite of an orphan article - a great article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The Examiner has linked Quaid to TIs as early as 2010. He should probably be on this page.[1] Bongolian (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup. There are a few more sections to do yet, at the least. We also have to add a few other people well-known in whistleblower (NSA) circles, such as Kirk Wiebe and Bill Binney. Doesn't seem they identify as TIs, but they appear on their insane web shows and encourage their delusions. Most unfortunate, that.---Mona- (talk) 20:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

"Mentally ill"[edit]

They are not all mentally ill, not in the clinical sense. Many lead productive lives, just as their predecessor alien-abductees often did and do. Or, people believing themselves oppressed by demons. I'll be getting into that, with recourse to reporting on opinions from mental health professionals.

That said, some are most definitely clinically paranoid and/or psychotic. The worst case I know of is prosecutor Myron May, who went on a shooting rampage at a Florida university. May killed one and wounded a couple of others, and was finally (righteously) shot down by the cops. (An example of police shooting a black man when they actually had to.)

May was also a member of a Facebook group called "Targeted Individuals International." Targeted Individuals are people — often seen as conspiratorial or delusional — who contend they are targets of spying, harassment or abuse, sometimes by electromagnetic radiation weaponry.



On Friday, NBC News reported that May had reached out to another "targeted individual," Renee Pittman Mitchell, about a week ago through Facebook.


"He told me he just didn't want to go on living like this," Mitchell told NBC News. She said May left her three voicemails between 9:19 p.m. and 9:42 p.m. Wednesday, just hours before the shooting.


"I am currently being cooked in my chair. I devised a scheme where I was going to expose this once and for all and I really need you," he said in one of the messages, which NBC News reported had been authenticated by a relative as May's voice. "I do not want to die in vain."


In an email sent at 11:19 p.m., he wrote: "I've been getting hit with the direct energy weapon in my chest all evening. It hurts really bad right now."


That message was sent an just over an hour before the shootings at FSU. But May had apparently already made provisions to share what he believed was happening to him.

But they are not all crazy in May's sense. Probably a majority are not.---Mona- (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're being clear here. Are they paranoid or not? If they're paranoid, then they have a mental illness. Bongolian (talk) 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Not all paranoid people are clinically mentally ill. We are not medical professionals, and those who are do not consider that all of these individuals suffer from any formal dignosis. Some are eccentric cranks. Many UFO-abductees were not (are not) schizophrenic. Moreover, this "hearing voices" and sensations of being visited and attacked have happened to people throughout history; ditto for purportedly being meddled with by demons. People who had normal relationships and were productive. Something neurological could be going on, or some other explanation we just do not yet know. People attribute all this to whatever is the prevailing supernatural or woo explanation in their era. (But I'll get the documentation on all this, perhaps later today.) But let me emphasize, some of them are mentally ill, and the TI thing on the Internet nurtures and reinforces these poor people and "explains" their symptoms -- to the unhappiness of the medical professionals they see. That's what makes this whole thing less than harmless bullshit.---Mona- (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Going by the official definition of the term "mentally ill", which comes down to 1) it's something mental/behavorial and 2) it causes the person notable suffering and/or notably interferes with the person's ability to function properly in everyday life/society, yes these people are mentally ill. The way the general public commonly misinterprets the term, closely associates it with particular 'extreme' iterations of mental illness and often uses it as an insult doesn't change this. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 42015 AQD (UTC)
"yes these people are mentally ill. " Are you a physician? Many of these people lead very normal lives. That is, some of them have decent marriages, careers, and are not clinically ill. Being a crank does not constitute mental illness. This is not the sort of issue that can be resolved democratically, tho obviously for purposes of editing articles here if the majority insists on this error I can't do anything about that. Just as if the majority at Conservapedia say that evolution is a hoax, that is the "truth" there.---Mona- (talk) 22:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
National security reporter Sharon Weinberger did an extensive story for WaPo on this issue in 2007. You can read an interview with here here. Please pay attention especially to the last page of the first article, and the first question and answer of the second. Some of these people are very successful, such as Gloria Naylor, winner of the National Book Award. Moreover, not all TIs claim to experience some of the more outre symptoms and auditory hallucinations are somewhat common among productive people. There is no doubt that some TIs are mentally ill, and that they find support for their psychotic delusions at these TI web sites. But not all of them are.---Mona- (talk) 23:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Uh, Mona — you called them paranoid when you created the article. "Are you a physician?" Did you mean clinically paranoid or something else? Maybe you should clarify in the article. Bongolian (talk) 00:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm just using the official definition of the term, Mona. It's a very broad definition that potentially includes a whole host of people whose conditions' pathologization is likely not the best course of action, but it's the definition experts use. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:53, 1 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
Bongolian, the mere term "paranoid" has lay, colloquial meanings. "Mentally ill" does not (142Bon, I don't understand your argument -- if you are claiming otherwise?). In an article we shouldn't be claiming that every TI is necessarily mentally ill when: 1. No mental health professional consensus holds this, 2. Some of the reported symptoms appear across human history and may have a neurological basis, and 3. Clearly successful -- personally and professionally -- people identify as TIs. (A good metric of mental illness is the inability to maintain personal relationships.) Eccentricity is a human thing, and one can be very eccentric without being "insane." Anyway, I'm going to start writing a section from my POV and obviously if others disagree they can change it.---Mona- (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where I've been unclear in my argument. And Mona, being successful in society doesn't preclude people from having a mental illness. There are many people with autism, antisocial personality disorder, Down syndrome, schizophrenia etc. who manage to be successful in society despite their condition (and in some situations a mental illness can even be advantageous). John NashWikipedia's W.svg comes to mind; may the good man rest in peace.
Either way, I'm personally pretty ambivalent on whether Targeted Individuals need to be typified as mentally ill in the article. I'm just trying to clear up the meaning of this oft-misused and misinterpreted term. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 18:03, 12 November 42015 AQD (UTC)
This may have been pointed out, but the clinical definitions of mental illness always have a component of persistent distress in the person's everyday life. So, someone who has completely ridiculous beliefs but is able to lead a happy and productive life shouldn't be considered mentally ill, as illness implies an inherent deficit in functioning. This idea was one of the primary motivators for the removal of homosexuality from the DSM-IV. Independent of society mores, homosexuality isn't inherently distressing. The same cannot be said of persons with paranoid schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorders. While John Nash was certainly successful in certain areas, his schizophrenia also clearly impacted his ability to maintain many other aspects of his life as well as causing significant personal distress. Success is defined by society, where distress is defined by the individual. That being said, categorizing human behavior will always be flawed.--Petey Plane (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Autism is not a mental illness -- tho like anyone, people with it can suffer co-occurring mental illnesses. Ditto for Down's. As for John Nash, until his schizophrenia was brought under control it very much interfered with his work and relationships.---Mona- (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It's not really a good idea to provide clinical opinions in such a way. Generalized paranoia (PPD) about big organizations are out to get someone is not healthy even though it may not be a significant impact on someone's life. However, it's usually a condition that gets worse over time without some sort of intervention. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Emerald, I agree with what you say. I'd just point out that eccentric, paranoid beliefs that are not "healthy" still do not constitute mental illness. Hell, many religious beliefs, and not a few political ones, considered mainstream are not healthy in a variety of ways. But advocating them isn't, standing alone, a symptom of mental illness.---Mona- (talk) 18:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Graphic of red eyes?[edit]

If someone wanted to find one, it cold be fun to add a graphic of bloodshot eyes with a fun caption such as "Allergies shmallergies! You are targeted by 'them'" or something. I suck at embedding graphics but if another editor found such a pic I'd like it!---Mona- (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like something wikipedia commons might have. I don't know that it's directly possible, but an actual TI graphic like this, like this or like this (the existence of which is literally hilarious, because the TI's unwittingly use the image from the hnnnnnng meme for their very serious scare tactics). I lost it the first time I saw the TI's branding that meme pic unwittingly. Fantastic. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, their own images are exquisite, but they aren't likely to give us permission. Anyhoo, I've reached out to an amateur cartoonist great at photoshop and asked her to come up with something with bloodshot eyes.---Mona- (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
That's nice of you! This picture already exists on Wikimedia Commons (so it's likely to get to stay in our article), and I think it's pretty good. Let's use it, atleast for the time being? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Rev, go ahead and pick one of those Wiki commons red eyes and stick it in.---Mona- (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Ten-four, good buddy! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Mona's note to Mona[edit]

Include the JTRIG stuff and how excited that got TIs.---Mona- (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The QuWave Defender, feat. Henning Witte[edit]

A brilliant addition by Leuders; this product is truly insane. It's on Amazon for some reason, with the following product description - enough to fill several pseudoscience bingo cards;

Protection for Targeted Individuals from Electronic Harassment and Psychotronic Attacks caused by ELF, HAARP, Implants, Microwaves, Psychic Attacks etc. Produces a Scalar Field that interferes with external and internal negative harmful signals, and uses Solfeggio Waves to convert the electronic and psychic attacks to positive energy and strengthen the human bio-field. This is the personal model that you can carry with you wherever you go. You can wear it around your neck, in your pocket, purse, backpack, or briefcase. We also have a tabletop model that will protect your house.

Electronic Harassment and other forms of control are designed to leave targets feeling stressed out, disoriented, drowsy, helpless, and paranoid. Many victims find themselves implanted with microchips which have become too small for the human eye to see. Through extensive research and by applying our proprietary engineering technology from other products, we have discovered how to deliver stimulating frequency waves directly into the brain receptors while at the same time interfering with external negative control fields.

We have combined our Scalar Wave Technology with Solfeggio Frequencies and developed a device which constantly beams the waves directly into your brain via a Scalar Bio-Field. This Scalar Wave Field has a unique property of being able to interfere with harmful rays, reduce the effect and functioning of implants and act as a barrier to psycho-electronic harmful signals. In addition, the Defender adds two other frequencies used to modulate the Scalar Field to produce additional positive benefits.

These two low frequencies are derived from the famous Solfeggio Frequencies and because they modulate the Scalar Field, they are able to penetrate the brain and offer suppression of extraneous negative effects and provide soothing relief. The Defender has helped many targeted individuals cope with their harassment to be able to live a happier life.

This description was so hilariously insane that I had to visit the QuWave Defender website - where the real fun began. On said website, they themselves display how their product is being reviewed by the the utterly, utterly insane Swedish crank Henning Witte!

I've read his blog in Swedish - for one, he claims that the only reason that (his words) "90% of all very attractive women" only pick "disgusting men" and "suddenly turn lesbian" instead of spend their time with creepy "nice guys like him" is because they are "possessed by djinns", referencing the "works" of David Icke and a Simon Parkes.

He literally says (in bold text) that "Därför har så många vackra kvinnor så äckliga män", which translates to "This is the reason why so many beautiful women have such disgusting men". For the record, he uses "homeopathic gold" with "scalar wave properties" to try to exorcise the djinns (WTF does he do to women!?) that, he argues, causes these women - the ones he wants to do everything to - to not realise that they in fact want him, and that their previous sexual choice (be it other men or indeed women) was literally "disgusting" of them, even demonic. This is not a joke.

And what's even more scary insane fun, Henning is one of the key speakers (among two Swedes, the other being a professor emeritus who has fallen off his rocker - I've researched him too) at the Covert Harassment Conference this year. Henning is also the operator of the Swedish crank "media channel" "WhiteTV" (sounds race related, doesn't it? I appears to not be, though). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Witte[edit]

Before you edit yourselves blue, I'm going to suggest that Witte be given his own article at some point. I mean, check out WhiteTV. He has lots of super scary woman hating crank blog posts, and he thinks the Estonia disaster was caused by the actual ship being "remote controlled" the whole time. Yes, like a little RC car. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Love how article is shaping up[edit]

This is definitely one of the best experiences of collaborative writing I've had at this wiki. Several of you know quite a bit and what you don't know, you are resourceful enough to locate.

When the TIs started showing up in Greenwald's comments I was gobsmacked. As they inundated the place I went looking to know more about the phemonenon and this site was the first one I checked. To my astonishment, there was nothing. (So I spend a lot of time with teh god google edumacating myself.) Well, a few of the more political articles here had really impressed me and so by last August I decided to join and get started on drafting an article myself. (I got, er, sidetracked for a bit with, um, another issue.)

The piece is shaping up so very well. I would ask to be given large deference on copy-editing because, to toot my own horn, I'm good at it. For decades I've been an editor in several professional capacities. Sometimes I have to "kill your babies." Such is the way of the world, where nature -- and editors -- are red in tooth and claw.---Mona- (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

yeah it's not a bad article. CorruptUser (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Cool; go for it, Mona. To me, this fruitful process defines how nice and amicable it can be to edit articles, even between editors with differing viewpoints, as long as troublemakers are barred from ruining everything. *Deep inhale* ...aaah... *Slow exhale*. Also, I have some very important TI material for you guys to look at. Want me to go grab it now? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Great article, much needed, shoulda been done long ago, etc. AFAIK, this is the only comprehensive refutation of the TI narrative on the web. Leuders (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Saying that makes my mouth water... we're useful, hooray! And the TI phenomenon has a shit-load of sources we can use, there's so much crankery in this area. It's a debunker's goldmine, I tells ya. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yup, like Leuders I couldn't find a freakin' thing debunking TIs. Oh, an entry or two at Urban Dictionary and such, but no wiki-type treatment.---Mona- (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
As someone who watches Wake Up America for fun... I'm extatic over what we can - nay, must! - do with this article. Let's aim for front page (long term), lads and ladies. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

NSA whistleblower reveals how directed energy weapons are used against targeted individuals[edit]

Grab a beer and enjoy, if you have the time. It's marvellous (for anyone who, like me, loves shoddy-editing absurdism). Phil Marie is the host (his whole gig is being a TI), Wally is the sleepy old guy who hates 'migrunts. In every episode they hide an Obama cut-out that peeks at the viewer. They're the real life equivalent of a Tim & Eric cable show but about TIs - I use to joke that it's "InfoWars with zero budget". The studio decor alone makes me all giddy. Even the names of exactly everyone who participates on the show are insanely wierd; like Spraynard Krueger wierd. It's fantastic.


It's educational (and Poe's Law comedy) on the whole movement; you'll be surprised how much TI material it actually reflects correctly despite the low view count of the videos themselves. Several of their videos are on the TI phenomenon itself, and features guests. And have some patience if this particular episode isn't specific enough; this is just the tip of the iceberg. And it features NSA whistleblower Kirk Wiebe-on phone! Don't disqualify and just... just enjoy this whole... this whole thing. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I've come across the phrase Wake up in TI stuff before. Leuders (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Wake Up America in its totality (see channel) is the best of two worlds - near-authoritative on the TI phenomenon, while also insanely funny to anyone with an absurdist streak. I'm serious; this gets me riled up like a Corgi. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh dear. I shall definitely have to watch that, for I have a very strong absurdist streak. I can end up doubled over, with tears streaming down my face, at people seriously prattling about sheer bullshit. If I believed in reincarnation I'd worry I'd been one of those nasty people who pitched pennies at the Bedlam inmates to watch them have meltdowns. Truth is, "there but for the grace of God...."---Mona- (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
In that case - you wierd lost twin of mine - enjoy Wake Up America. It can be enjoyed like a sitcom in that you get to know the recurring characters (mostly Phil and Wally) and enjoy the "running gags" (such as the constant moving of the Obama face cutout to various sneaky places - in a show that calls itself dead serious).
They do everything right on this show (in the absurdist sense of the word) - stars and stripes cowboy hats, gigantic analogue clock despite obvious access to video editing tools, sirens (that sometimes light up!), unconvincing office plants, US map that lacks Alaska and the islands (but features random stickers that read NSA)... They even got a laptop and some bunches of paper (a real command center set up - they want you to know they do research!). People calling in and the sound quality is busted so Wally has to yell like a bafoon (when he's not literally snore-sleeping on camera). They show the viewers text and video snippets by filming their monitors...
It's just gold. If I had the energy, I'd give Wake Up America its own article. But alas; for now, just enjoy. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
That Wake Up America rang a bell. I had a HUGE go-around with TIs several times in the comments at Greenwald's place in the NSA articles. If you care to, read thru the 420 comments here. One of my detractors used the moniker "Wake Up America."---Mona- (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
So then, you've had close contact with the show's fans truthseekers of the world. You should watch the episode where Phil Marie shows us his home footage of how the NSA agent provocateurs (that means you, Mona) shut down his vehicle on the way to work. It's mostly absurd silence, watching him wrestle his steering wheel at three miles per hour and wheeze heavily, finally ending with him letting off a MOTHERF- the very moment it cuts back to the show, even though he cut it! Aah, it's just wonderful to watch. Also, that man is a driving hazard. And he keeps saying they zap him in the nads - watch a few episodes and he'll get around to his testicles and his aluminum coated bedset, I guarantee it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I literally mean it; he himself has expressed concerns over his own capacity to drive as they keep "tingling his privates". Like no joke, almost kinda forewarning the viewers, saying that "one of these days, if they don't stop, I might just slam into pedestrians..." *stares right into camera scoffing nervously*. Maybe some homeopathic gold could do the trick for him? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I couldn't laugh simply because my jaw was dropping that Kirk fucking Wiebe is one of these freaks and I sent a few emails about that. He's sometimes included on the list of Snowden-precursor whistleblowers at the NSA. Also, the host mentions Jacob Appelbaum and a speech he gave. I've seen that speech, and I've interacted with Jacob. He's not a nut. He works for the TOR Project, among other things. Jacob is friends with Snowden, Greenwald and Laura Poitras and has published some of the NSA stories in Der Speigel. (He lives in Berlin.)---Mona- (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Un-believable. Well, if nothing else, you can see how Wake Up America is relevant to the article. And this isn't even one of their episodes specifically titled as specifically covering TIs! Also, if you're this close to the subject matter, you may want to watch part 1 as well. The above is part 2. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Interview with "Sam", Targeted Individual[edit]

Needs no introduction. Gold. Can you find the Obama face in this one? Like, seriously. Poe's Law GOLD!


A few minutes into this particular episode (as I recall it), he literally has to pause the interview momentarially because his nads and inner thighs are getting singed by NSA laser weapons or something. I am not joking. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I'd missed there was also another episode with the same TI lady! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:18, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

History undeleted[edit]

I undeleted the edit history for you. I'm not totally sure why it got deleted in the move, though if you give me some time I might be able to figure it out. I think I vaguely remember something like this happening before on other MediaWiki wikis, so you might have gotten bitten by a bug. Protip: if a page has deleted revisions it says so on the edit history page. --Ymir (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Parapsychology[edit]

Rev, if you can locate a source such as WaPo, NYT, some significant news outlet, or a mental health journal, ascribing parapsychological beliefs to TIs, I'll go along with including that. (I don't recall any of the outlets I've read saying so, and I'm not done; I have a NYT thing to do yet, as well as CBS. They don't say that.) If you can find a significant number of TIs advocating such a thing, say at their conferences, I'll also go along with the nav bar.---Mona- (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Leave the summary text in (it contains a novel source for one) but leave the template out for now. Give me time to locate this information. I advise the written summary to be left standing now, partially because it allows other users to work on other segments of the article while I prepare a case here. I would appreciate the gesture from you that we can leave the template out but let the summary text stand for now - it's succinct and sourced. That's all. Thank you for your time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
When you have the sources I will leave it in. I've read a very great deal on this topic and believe you to be wrong. AH agrees with me. The burden is on you, not on me.---Mona- (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
AH agrees with you on the template, so the template is out. There's no problem with the summary text, and AH has not commented on it - just on the template, which I've agreed to leave out for now. We're one against one, and I'm asking you to not be anal over this. Please let me gather the sources in peace. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I just searched "Targeted Individuals parapsychology." This site came up on page 2. The only one. Makes no sense at all to include claims you cannot document, and I also cannot find any support for. No, Rev, no. Not until you have some support.---Mona- (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
So the next time you mention a word like that, it's fine for Arisboch or Avenger to Google "article name + that word" and then claim there's nothing to what you're saying? You're not showing me good will right now. And you are reverting without a majority - AH was about the template, which I left out. Knock it off already, you're older than me for chrissakes. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
You need to calm down, step back, and consider the situation: I am saying you have no documentation for a claim that I believe to be false, based on my copious reading on the topic. Then, I did my own search and found nothing. NOTHING. This is about accuracy and support -- or lack thereof -- for what this site claims. It's simple: if I am wrong you will find citations. (I did not.) But based on my knowledge of the topic I don't think I am.---Mona- (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Parvant (wisely) stepped in and protected the page. I will continue to revert, however, unless and until you have sourcing. That said, I think I did remove a reference for the psychotronics, which I did not mean to do. At any rate, you have a few hours to find what you do not have and what I could not locate. Go forth.---Mona- (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Paravant acted in everyone's interest; as am I. Now, let's read the opening sentence of this articleWikipedia's W.svg out loud in the room we're sitting in, shall we? And then we turn to a mirror and we look, deep. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A proper noun?[edit]

Forgive me if this has already been discussed before (I have not paid much attention to this article until now), but as the subject of this article is not a proper noun, shouldn't the title be lower-cased? Gooniepunk (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In every case where the TIs appear, they seem to spell it with two capital first letters. In fact, they often short it down to the capitalized "TI" themselves. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Depending on definitions, it's correct to say that it's not a proper nounWikipedia's W.svg because it consists of more than just a noun. But the fact remains that it's de facto used as the proper name for this group of people ("proper name" being the term employed when the name consists of more than just a noun). It's also worth noting that similar to how "Islamic State" and "Islamic state" or "Black Eyed Peas" and "black-eyed peas" are not synonymous/readily interchangable, the same is true for "Targeted Individuals" and "targeted individuals". 141.134.75.236 (talk) 23:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
The Washington Post reporter most knowledgeable on TIs, writes it: Targeted Individual. ---Mona- (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Here comes the psychic nav; to stay "Just" inclusion in the summary and article[edit]

Sorry for this textdump, but it's an example of typical TI sources that are atleast verbose, commented on and passed along diligently in the TI community. None of these results are from below front-page-of-Google-notability, atleast. Enjoy.

Although the psychotronics terminology is literally parapsychological, it doesn't matter, because we have telepathy now (and clairvoyance). Telepathy is even more psychic nav. Oh, and by the way, we need telepathy in the summary now. And the psychic nav is coming to stay.

Rev, please quote directly from a major TI source, or a publication about them. When I went to this link of yours: http://atargetedindividual.blogspot.se/2009/12/targeted-individuals-and-freemason.html I saw a lot of stuff about Freemasons, nothing about parapsychology. I'm asking for evidence that TIs in significant numbers -- their main sites, or outlets writing about them -- consider parapsychological matters part of the TI thing. A random FB post, or a commment at a blog, does not demonstrate that. (You can find a few UFO cranks claiming Jesus is somehow involved, but that doesn't mean ufology is a Jesus cult in the main.) Where's the workshops at their international conference? Or WaPo writing about that? Not a Facebook posting. At best, so far all you have is a footnote.---Mona- (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"Major TI source"? I already do. The site that's currently providing us with our opening quote and our entire exposition on the TI narrative goes on into specifics about telepathy. Telepathy, Mona. And besides, the parapsychology definition - I reply to above. Not here. Regardless, we'll be doing the inclusion of clairvoyance and telepathy into the article and indeed into the summary, among their mentioned methods. And for the tenth time, psychotronics is a parapsychological term. Here, one of the interviewees on the Covert Harassment Conference literally converses on parapsychology (by name) in the context of the Covert Harassment Conference. What did you think, that this was an article on geopolitics and the NSA? It's not. This is an article on cranks on geopolics and the NSA.
I see. So, that same site has a whole tab for reincarnation, that includes Jesus stuff and astrology. In the gazillion of TIs I've had to deal with, not one has brought up telepathy, reincarnation, or any of that. WaPo and NYT do not. I'm willing to take fun quotes from their sites, and to reference note with them, but you might observe I rely on main outlets for most of what I write. There's a reason for that. TIs are not about reincarnation, noitwithstanding that link.---Mona- (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
First of all, since we've all agreed to scratch the psychics nav, this has now become a question merely of the article contents. And I see no reason we should lack plurality in the article. An article on TIs that's not reflective of their own literal words and positions is a joke - partially because we're here to analyse, to comprehensively catalogue, and to refute their positions. An article that only relies on mainstream sources on TI's will include very little. Anyways; I don't plan to just shotgun in the below stuff into the article. I'm going to carefully and nicely add sources and statements to the article over a period of weeks, as will you, and we'll both concede points, we'll both show goodwill, and we'll end up with a great article - which will include clear mentions of clairvoyance, twin psychics, the reptilian connection and the rest that can be properly sourced and that these people believe. You seem to think that this topic can, or should, be separated from the crankery. This is an article on crankery. We'll both make great additions and we'll end up at the right place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
As I said, a footnote. And I didn't say "only rely on mainstream sources." I myself did not. But, I take my general understanding of what TIS are about from main outlets. Should the summary also include astrology, reincarnation, and the gnostic gospels? Cuz that's all at your linked site as well.---Mona- (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)---Mona- (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
ADDING:"This is an article on crankery." That's right, and astrologers prattle about Jesus, and some Xtians about astrology. Cranks do often mix up their crankery. But, we are not going to include stuff about Jesus belief in the summary for the astrology article.---Mona- (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
That won't be a problem because that is a straw man and a red herring. You're making me out to look like I'm trying to randomly shuffle the whole wiki into this whole article. I'm not. All I want covered is the terms and beliefs they repeatedly discuss. Psychics. Psychotronics (parapsychology term). Microwaves. Gang stalking. Telepathy. Covert harassment. All of this not only fits into, but belongs in this article. And it's sourcable. The article is on them and they believe this. And they reliably bring these core beliefs up! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

More importantly[edit]

Any given page only needs 1 navtemplate. Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 00:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

*agrees* 142.124.55.236 (talk) 00:39, 10 December 42015 AQD (UTC)
No problem, gentlemen. In that case, forget the psychic nav. In that case, my case is "only" for inclusion in the summary and in the article contents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
In the summary only as a footnote. That's all you have produced any justification for. (And, we can footnote astrology and reincarnation, too!)---Mona- (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually there's plenty of reincarnation sources too, though they're not ripe for yet. One step at a time builds a great article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You won't convince me to swallow the whole TI phenomenon with stuff about psychics, reincarnation, Jesus, gnostic gospels & etc. Can't be done.---Mona- (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
You want to describe the TI movement in a way that fails to actually capture them. And I'm just here to counterbalance that - notice that I haven't fought your fine addtions. My additions are also fine, and they will indeed permeate the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
This isn't about whether you "fight my fine additions." My additions are not fine if they are wrong or editorially unsound. Many of your edits have been very, very good. Just not these.---Mona- (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm your friend and your ally. I was really happy to read that you were so elated that the conflict was over when Ruylong fucked off just now. You know what I was? Elated as well. Can't we both stay calm (without fingerpointing on who is and isn't already) and not treat this article like a chat that needs to comply instantly? We'll make this article great, don't worry. We'll get there. One step at a time. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Just make a section about paranormal beliefs in the TI community and slide your refs into there? All good? FuzzyCatPotato of the Sanguine Lockpicks (talk/stalk) 01:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Paranormality is not what these people believe in - they believe in the existence of physics that allows for mind control, telepathy, clairvoyance and technology based on this that is covertly used to harass them. I argue that the TI phenomenon isn't, without sticking to these base beliefs. And a segmented article isn't good editorially either. We'll get around to a great balance, I think. My base premise is that this article won't go into frontpage tonight anyways, and also that Paravant's locking was good and should perhaps stay on for a day or two while we all remember we love each other. In short though; your intentions are noble as always, FCP. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I had an idea. Why don't you throw in a section about the various pieces of crankery one can also find at this or that TI site. That's a point ibn and of itself -- that cranks on one thing are usually receptive to other crankery. And don't mistake my terse style for hostility. My mind races and I am simply trying to get my point out.---Mona- (talk) 01:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Same... I appreciate the gesture. Here's what I'm thinking though, friends. Why don't we just let the article rest a bit, we'll figure some things out, maybe actually dig deeper into their materials? There's always more episodes of Wake Up America to enjoy; besides, the Covert Harassment Conference has published full high quality speeches. Let's watch them a little and just generally study the movement closer - both on their own cranky sites and via news media - and we'll all come full circle in this specific context in a day or two? Not saying I'm "forbidding edits" in this time period (lol). I just mean, let's keep the article flexible, let's imagine that sentences will shrink and grow and that sources will be inserted into it at novel locations. Good ones, too. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I've been disturbed about the Kirk Wiebe video. He has to be added and I'll do that next. He's a "somebody" and included on some lists of NSA whistleblowers. Thanks for bringing that my attention.---Mona- (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
No problems, buddy. Also, check this out - he's done many, many full length interviews on Wake Up America! He's so brave, standing up to the clairvoyant thugs... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I jumped in the episode, and here Kirk Wiebe (or maybe Bill Binney?) talks about how "THEY" can't stand sunlight... Vampirism, or reptilians? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Fruit pause![edit]


Go ask your mom or dad for the ripest piece of fruit in the house, polish it up nicely with your shirt, and enjoy this Targeted Individual rant with me. Phil Marie lets the puppet masters have it. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In case the embedding bugs - these are the droids we're looking for. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Jump to 00:55 - again with the balls? Don't ever change, Phil. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Here, Phil goes on about how "drug dealing pornographers" are busting (or maybe laser-singeing?) his balls. Yes, literally. Oh, and here he blows a gasket and almost goes full-frontal-nudity profanity mode against his attackers. He contained it, though. Just barely. But man, too close! He almost just added the FCCWikipedia's W.svg to his already staggering roster of guerilla-attacking enemies! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
To his defense, he does claim the guy watches him have sex. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Page unlocked[edit]

Back to edit-warring, gentlemen. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 01:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We won't be doing that. And there's a gentlewoman involved as well. (I'm THIS CLOSE to fedora tipping). Thanks for unlocking our playpen, though - we made a pinkie swear that we wouldn't smack each other over the head with the toys. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
[scratches head] It was already unlocked.---Mona- (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
FCP is just literally egging us on. Well, I'm too busy watching Phil Marie get zapped in the nuts, and watching Wally bang his fist in the table over Obamer! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 02:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Bill Binney, too![edit]

This just blows me away. First, learning that NSA whistelblower indulgeds these TI sickos, but Bill Binney does as well.


Encouraging them to think slow Interent service is "them" harassing TI's. Binney wants them to collect a data base of energy weapons and start matching them up to victims. Jesus.---Mona- (talk) 18:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep! Wake Up America is an absolute gem in every way. It's absurdist-comedic gold, actual-TI-information gold, and it's sanity kryptonite. I laughed so hard at your post, and I was thrilled you made it - I snorted out a most sympathetic horse laugh of "I know, right?!?". And just for the record; I've watched like half the episodes of this lovely programme (and tons of other things on TI's, of course) since weeks or months (depending on how far back in their uploads you scroll), and I think that that might explain why I've been kinda "towing the mental illness and mind ray line" since the moment we started discussing the TI's for real. It's like, this is really not just about Snowden. To put it mildy. In fact, in (atleast) one sense, it's not about Snowden whatsoever.
In my view, the TI's occupying the whole NSA discussion is as simple as that topic being too great a projection surface for them to not grab and run with. Subconciously, of course - they certainly don't think they've fallen off the rocker or anything! Meanwhile, I'm over here going like - may I just remind everyone that we're at the literal point of people who consider themselves sane wanting to hand out mind ray weapons to fight off the twin psychic teams who talk in perfect sync and who lift cars with their pulsating brains?! (Said with comedic license, though way less of it than you'd think, which is the freaky part).
Anyhow, I'm glad we're delving into this - studying these people further (if done with honesty) literally equates to continuing down the rabbithole with them, getting further and further from any type of sane discussion on the NSA or whatever. And that's part of the true TI experience - to atleast set foot that deep in their world. It's really as we've all agreed from day one - expecting TI beliefs to reflect anything factual about the NSA or Snowden-related findings is about as plausible (or even coherent!) as the expectation that Atlantis-Pyramid cranks would plausibly (or even coherently!) reflect anything factual about the history of the pyramids or ancient egypt.
Regardless, thank you for taking the time to make this post! Post anything else worthwhile you watch, I'll do the same. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
And to repeat myself from above (regarding Kirk and Bill) - here Kirk Wiebe (or maybe Bill Binney?) talks about how "THEY" can't stand sunlight... Vampirism, or reptilians? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually don't find this stuff very funny. It all reminds me too much of the unhinged conspiracy theories at the church in which I was raised -- I was immersed in that oppressive bullshit and found freedom via reason and college.---Mona- (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

"Examining the TI narrative"[edit]

I would personally say that much of this section (especially the side-by-side comparison) is overly long and could be said with much less words. Opinions? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I just copy-edited some of then first, non-bifurcated part. It is long, perhaps too long, and I haven't much edited it. I think PeteyPlane wrote the first draft, so let's see what he says, and Rev as well.---Mona- (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I actually disagree. I mean, copyediting and all - certainly, we can't do that enough. And in that continued process of refinement, there's no inherent reason to me visible why time spent on the text e.g. couldn't result in improved phrasing which utilizes fewer actual bytes of text and so on. But as a basic draft for what we need to mention (keeping in mind that as a mid priority article we can't snark too much), I think it needs to be verbose in the way that other RW refutation segments are in other current articles (e.g. "Modern science in the bible" or "Ray Comfort arguments"). Also, merry christmas to you both Carpet and Mona (and to the RW community) :) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I'm going to want to keep the basic format and analysis. But it may be exceptionally verbose. Let me look at it in a few days with a copy-editor's eye. AgingHippie would be another good one to ask because his copy-editing skills are great. Happy Winter Solstice to all. ---Mona- (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Language[edit]

In this edit Mona added the word "gravamen". I had to look up what it meant. I also had to look up "buttressed" earlier (not sure if Mona or someone else added that, the MediaWiki software makes it difficult to see who added what). There are also some others words that I noticed as "difficult" when proofreading/copy editing the page earlier.

Now, English is not my first language, so I recognize some failing on my part. Yet, I think that for a second-language English speaker, I do a reasonable job—probably better than most. I have more English than Dutch books, haven't used subtitles for well over a decade, spent quite a bit of the last 15 years communicating in English on the internet, and have been dating a British girl for two years. On top of that, I've been actively trying to improve my English skills for the last few years (which is actually one reason I write on RW).

So if I, as a (probably) better-than-average non-native English speaker has to look up words to verify what they mean, imagine what the average or less-than-average English speaker's experience will be!

I'm not going to change anything right now, but please try to keep in mind that you're writing an article which is probably read by people of varying English skills... I don't think we should go out of our way to avoid complex words or assume that our readership are idiots, but if a (much more) common word or expression is available (as there is in these cases) we should probably opt to use that...

Just my 2c on this ;-) Carpetsmoker (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Understood CS, but "gravamen" and "buttressed" are not esoteric, "big words."Heck, I haven't tossed hermeneutics in anywhere! Or numinous! And I've had both spring to mind several times but scotched them for the reason you describe. ---Mona- (talk) 21:44, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I'd never have guessed English isn't your first language. Never have I been proficient enough in my second language to edit as you do here.---Mona- (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
When you grow up somewhere Anglophone with an adequate supply of castles, 'buttress' is learned early. Queexchthonic murmurings 22:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and you learn that buttresses can fly.---Mona- (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, no. "Gravamen" is a legalism, a term of art, as far as I can tell. Never having heard Sam Waterston use it in Law & Order, I had to look it up. I've always thought of buttresses as appurtenances to cathedrals, more than to functional (not ceremonial or decorative) castles. Maiden Castle in Dorset, for example, has none, nor never did. I am fond of working crepuscular into casual conversation, along with procrustean and pleonastic. Especially "pleonastic." Alec Sanderson (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
So alright already! I took out "gravamen." I guess I didn't realize I was so familiar with the useage in a professional context, and I know I've seen it used other contexts, but enough here had trouble with it that i figured it should go. It is, therefore, gone!---Mona- (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Well I grew up in a place which is neither anglophone nor in the possession of an adequate supply of castles, but if you're freakishly interested in Gothic cathedrals you learn words like 'buttress' and the flying variants soon enough (same goes for groin vaults, lancet arches, and other things). JorisEnter (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Pruning the "TI Narrative" segment[edit]

Mona raised some concerns about the length and overstatement of that segment; I agree that it needs pruning and general copyediting. I believe Mona had an initial suggestion on which segments we may axe and which should stay; everyone with similar concerns is invited to list their suggestions here so that we may discuss them. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary to analyze every word of the quote used in that section. The text was unwieldy, overstated, and just waaaay too long. Above, one can find others objecting to the length, and even the bifurcation. Specific changes can and should be addressed here and discussed.---Mona- (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I already brought this up two weeks ago ("Examining the TI narrative"), although didn't reach a conclusion. I'm not a big fan of this section, myself. I don't like side-by-side stuff in general as it's not that readable IMHO, and this just seems to take a random TI article and criticizes it. well, okay, but why this article? Why in a side-by-side format? Why so long? Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Look at it now, after I've edited it. If the side-by-side is to stay (and I wouldn't weep over losing it), it absolutely was too long.---Mona- (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The short version is that I very largely agree with you on the problems of that section. The answers are overly long, a bit repetitive, and overstate their points at times. The problem becomes which parts to cut down, and why them. First of all, I'd rather cut down on our replies to the narrative, rather than to selectively cut away from the source text we've utilized (and which is a fine text). It may be attractive to "quote mine" these people, but it appears more fully editorially sound (and - importantly - more snarky) to actually provide the full context in our examination segment. So I'd begin the copy-editing in two ends: slicing down the reply-segments and/or merging some of the used text points (but not erasing parts of them). Ideas? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
So to be clear: I'm all for cutting down that unyieldy segment. I'm just thinking that we ought to consider firstly cutting down the length of our reply text (and/or repurposing it for a different article section), and consider secondly merging together the parts we quote from without taking away from the totality of text. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
We have plenty of TI quotes in the article already, and are almost certainly going to have more. We don't need to reproduce that entire pile of nonsense and give it all serious analysis; it doesn't merit that. ---Mona- (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
In comparison to the Modern Science in the Bible article, I think we can accept that examinative sections can indeed be allowed to fully reproduce texts that are as short as this segment. I think it's inclusive to many things, and I think it's worthwhile to keep contextually sound as-is. However, I'm sure there's ways to toss it into something better - e.g. by merging the segments we quote from and pruning our replies in kind. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"United States of Paranoia: They See Gangs of Stalkers"[edit]

This article was a hack job by a minion so called journalist. Again, it is more telling that one would devote so much time an effort to discredit the horrific crime against innocent American's in their homes including slow-kill of children. This is perpetrated by vermin such as Kissinger and "Israeli" war mongers.

The New York Times just did a pretty good piece on TIs. Some editor(s) probably should incorporate part of of it into the article. While I continue to read a lot about this phenomenon I don't wish to participate at this site for the foreseeable future. (I see a notice that there's a message on my talk page: I decline to read it.) Anyone wanting additional information I have can email me. ---Mona- (talk) 16:20, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for the link suggestion! I'll look into integrating worthwhile parts of it into the article at some point (knock on wood; I have ADHD). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Mona, that writing on your talk page isn't important, so you're right. pbfreespace (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Baton Rouge cop killer was a TI[edit]

This should also absolutely be incorporated into the article:

His history of rambling postings indicated that the attack was motivated at least in part by killings by police of black Americans in recent years and the resulting unrest. In one recent clip, he expressed disgust over the arrest of protesters demonstrating in Baton Rouge over the fatal shooting of Alton Sterling earlier this month.



But they also pointed to apparent paranoia and mental instability. Long complained last year to likeminded message board users that he was a long-term victim of “gang-stalking”, a supposedly intense form of government and corporate surveillance covering every aspect of a subject’s life.


Claiming to be a round-the-clock “TI” – targeted individual – Long urged others in his situation to wear body cameras to monitor such surveillance and to warn companies involved in harassment “that we are going to expose your involvement and rate your poor performances & games on the internet”.
---Mona- (talk) 02:58, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
It certainly should! Great link again, thanks girl. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Open Your Eyes, Free Your Mind[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Open Your Eyes, Free Your Mind.

I am writing this in response to an "unwelcome" message I received after I attempted to make some edits on a wiki page about Targeted Individuals which I found to be totally biased, degrading, and narrow minded. I would like to share it with your group for general discussion. I do not assume that everybody in this community has this point of view of general lack of compassion or inability to think outside of the box/entertain new ideas. I pray that this is not deleted, as I consider this to be an important dialogue for your group to engage in.

Thank you for your lukewarm "unwelcome"

I find it very sad to see how your "rational" wiki fails to entertain ideas outside of your own very narrow perspective on reality.

I see "rational" defined as "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." Tell me, then, how do you explain, logically and rationally, what 96% of the universe is made of? ((http://www.space.com/11642-dark-matter-dark-energy-4-percent-universe-panek.html))

Now go ahead and tell me that you have zero doubt that the experiences of a growing and diverse group of people who identify as targeted individuals is a collective delusion. Zero doubt? Are you really that confident that you claim to know it all, to have it all figured out?

As I have already attempted to interject these sentiments into your TI wiki page and had them altered and re-edited, I am curious as to what this whole platform is really all about. Sharing our ideas and expanding our perspectives, learning how to keep an open mind to learn new things? Or to remain entrenched in the status quo? How many geniuses are there that were told their ideas were impossible?

The language used on your Targeted Individual wiki page is highly biased and totally demeaning to TI's - in other words, completely uncalled for. It smacks of self righteousness and myopic world views.

And how anybody can call MK Ultra or Cointelpro "pseudohistory' is beyond me. That is, unless you happen to be a character in George Orwell's 1984....

I see that you will guard your gates and spread your self righteous disinformation, regardless of attempts by others to expand your world views.

Again, it is sad, but I know a lost cause when I meet one.

I pray for the expansion of your consciousness, as well as for your ability to see past the end of your own nose. — Unsigned, by: 24.59.116.121 / talk / contribs

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
I find it very sad to see how your "rational" wiki fails to entertain ideas outside of your own very narrow perspective on reality.
It was just me and another person. You find two editors to be representative on the community as a whole?
The language used on your Targeted Individual wiki page is highly biased and totally demeaning to TI's - in other words, completely uncalled for. It smacks of self righteousness and myopic world views.
"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink!
HamburgerPlate (talkstalk) 01:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I have an undue accusation for you BoN. No one who considers themselves a TI fails to suffer from at least low grade psychotic episodes or paranoid delusions(which are different from hallucinations).
Asking you to seek therapy would probably come off to you as demeaning, insulting, patronizing, or a combination of all of them. But it's not intended as any of them. Therapy is perfectly harmless, involves no involuntary measures, and is often sought by entirely stable people who wish to deal with small personal issues, and is nothing to be ashamed of. It won't show up on a background check, you don't need to inform employers, most therapists can't even prescribe medication.
But a therapist can help you accurately identify why you feel targeted, and, hell, if you're actually targeted, and I'm the crazy one, they can help you identify and separate from the negative influences in your life that might be causing it.
Please seek therapy. If you don't want to talk to a therapist, let me know, and I can maybe help you find other ways to address this. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 15:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Goodpost.gif You also have patient-doctor confidentiality with your therapist, so it's a legally protected space in which to process all this. Trust me, it's better than trying to do the same alone, in front of a computer, at all hours. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Fidel Castro[edit]

... was definitely a 'targeted individual.'

We all probably have occasional feelings of 'them' being against us' (the idiots who get in your way when you are in a hurry or phone you during the last ten minutes of the thriller you are watching etc), and having runs of bad luck.

The question is why 'the authorities' would wish to target the people who are suffering these problems. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

And a better question is why they'd resort to bizarre half-measures, when recent evidence indicates that police forces can kill with near impunity. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 18:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Along the same lines, one could ask why would a massive global conspiracy allow someone like Alex Jones to live, if is is as dangerous to their machinations as he believes himself to be. Petey Plane (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Some of 'the idiots' are genuine nuisances, others just give greater priority to their own interests than in being cooperative with what you wish to do (and we have all met both).
Perhaps the global conspiracy (of thinking sheeple) have decided that the best way of targetting such people is to #completely ignore them#.
The best way of dealing with 'hostile officialdom' - find ways of confusing/baffling them, or write a bestselling story and find innovative ways of ensuring your tax moneys go to useful causes. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
... writing a best selling novel that satirizes their activities (or lack of them) - and I am suggesting 'targetting your taxes' rather than avoiding them (and other such activities). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)