He's using the argument that Sears may have been a old world company in on the cover up with this weird product that makes no sense. It was an interesting observation that I had no idea existed and didn't come across as controlled opt IMO.
If it comes across as controlled opposition, then it's not working. The whole point of controlled opposition is the provide a straw man that is obviously false. It's best if the controlled asset isn't even aware of what they are doing. Take for example the original 17 year run of the Daily Show. That Jon Stewart sure seemed smart, didn't he? Why did he always win his arguments? Because he was only allowed to argue against controlled assets.
He's using the argument that Sears may have been a old world company in on the cover up with this weird product that makes no sense. It was an interesting observation that I had no idea existed and didn't come across as controlled opt IMO.
If it comes across as controlled opposition, then it's not working. The whole point of controlled opposition is the provide a straw man that is obviously false. It's best if the controlled asset isn't even aware of what they are doing. Take for example the original 17 year run of the Daily Show. That Jon Stewart sure seemed smart, didn't he? Why did he always win his arguments? Because he was only allowed to argue against controlled assets.
I don't think for a second Jon Levy or lunchbreak are controlled op.
Yes some episodes are redundant but as a whole they shine a light on issues tptb would rather be buried...pun intended.