the operational shill messaging: the 'flavored' baker.
this effort is to constantly repeat the name and or operational phrase as many times as possible.
It's a constant reminder hazing, like batting someone over the head or flicking their ear constantly. It's a constant hazing.
in this case the person takes a picture of his sexually exicited Samoyade giving him 'daddy please' look.
this person speaks with the 'prison wardon' 'this is your home' voice.
"here is your dogshit.
now eat it"
it throws around all kinds of words but it really only means one thing: it want you to feel defeated and less and hurt and worried.
it's the voice of flase authority.
it speaks in mocking phrases.
the photograph is the look a horny dog give it's master when the master 'plays along' with it.
sorry.
I don't like it so I make it as obvious as possible to make it revulsive even for the interns who are tasked with posting it constantly.
no, anon, I find it repulsive. I just know what it is because someone I knew used to have that kind of a dog. And he used to encourage that look.
the psyoperation if ruined when the reason for the revulsion to an image is clear. They can say 'oh it's you.', but no. I would never take a picture like that and post it constantly. They collected photos of dogs giving that 'dog stare' look that is known (what I say it is, it really is that) and then they say that if you point it out that you are th eone with the problem? They use a branded image and claim that those to critique their content as being broken for knowing what the content is.
if you don't want someone saying that you post a picture of a dog with a come-hither look, then don't post that kind of an image.
this one uses vocalizations made common by situation comedy humor from the 1990s with the 'Turrets insult' persona
this person is unable to use a noun of reverence, without it being a multi-sylible putdown and insult. every noun is draped in adjectives that insult and defame.
>(You)
I explain what I see.
why does that image produce so much revulsion? because it reminds me of that kid when I was a kid and his stupid dog that would hump the chair.
I asked you to explain why the person would post that constantly. I give a plausible reason: it's a revulsion-shill effort.
all you do is try to deny what is obvious to anyone who ever had to endure a badly trained dog and a creepy person who encourages that.
you have to explain the reason such a picture would be robotically posted as an agency psyop?
please explain?
who funds it.
who 'poses' the dog?
who makes the graphics?
why would they choose that look (and yes, it's a well known 'come hither' kind of puppy petruding look.
why would they post it.
you make it about me pointing out the revulsion to it, that tax or agency monies are spent promoting it. I haul it out and put it into the direct sunlight of revelation with a rather tasteless observational description. but the item is tasteless, so how could a description of it not also be so?
but you try to wedge into my head. how I was abused, what I had to put up with . . . sad
when ever somoene posts that it means that they are leading on the other poster.
so what. my commentary is just as valid.
I ask again to whoever you are: why do they choise an image of a dog giving a come-hither look? just like they did with the governor of Michegan, constantly posting her in a too tight dress with her 'flush face' come-here-sailor look.
it was revulsion shilling.
the shill always tries to apply some kind of psychological problem to anyone who challanges and obviates the depraved tactics of operational conditioning and grooming of 'victim class' dupes.
one question: so I'm a problem but the one who poses a dog and takes it's picture for that purpose is given a pass?