The Colby locked topic...why?

[Myra Bronstein]

Oh for gods sakes, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your posts are some of the most vile on this forum and you are calling others out? I can't even begin to count the number of your posts calling members facists, nazis etc, Herr whomever.

Perhaps you can't even begin to count them because they never happened. Talk about one who shouldn't speak on this topic.....only wish they'd allow a poll of who agrees with your characterization, Mr Politeness.

either you are the one uniformed or you were just shining your hob nail boots and ironing your brownshirt....more upon my return Herr Ulman

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=77728

Lamson, you hate all but money and authority...I don't even read your posts....to get out of the impending fascism I don't try to convert a fascist....you don't work here or on JFK posts toward anything...you'd just like everyone to be a couch potato, drink their beer, eat their junkfood and watch the TV circus - AND NOT QUESTION AUTHORITY OR Halliburton etc.....if this is all such bull then why are you here?!..I think because you don't think it is bull**** - and you or those who you 'salute' are worried about it.....last you'll get a direct reply from me Herr Lamson. I don't like brown as a color for shirts, nor people who don't try to make the world a better place and who worship the powerful and greed, and don't help those in need and without power....and try to turn those seeking the truth away from the scent. Heil and farewell!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...s&pid=72225

I invite anyone to read the entire threads. To see that Lamson was calling me Lemming, others repeatedly loosers and baiting everyone. If this forum followed its own rules he would have long ago been reprimanded for his behavior and disregard for most humans, both on and off the Forum. Yes, he got me upset and that was a single not very tasteful post on my part...but look what led to it....and I invite anyone not familiar with

Len's techniques to research them as well.

Both these persons are actually IMO trying to stir up just the very event we hav

here.

To provoke - the work of provocateurs.

Peter, Kathy has emphasized that they way to handle such antics is to hit the "Report" button and let the mods deal with it.

I think I'll follow her advice and hope for good results.

If Myra or Peter had bothered to click on the links they'd have seen that the latter's claims are completely false. At no point prior to Peter calling them Nazis had Steve or Craig said anything to him in those threads that could be considered an insult. Both in fact had been very polite. Though Craig MAY have previously insulted Peter on other threads I'm reasonably sure Steve never did. I also am reasonably sure that any insults Craig MAY have previously leveled at him didn't warrant being called a Nazi on another thread.

Yes it's true Craig called him "Lemming" but what Peter fails to say is that was AFTER he called Craig a Nazi a very mild response all things considered.

So Myra will any criticism of Peter be forthcoming?

No.

What I personally care about is someone's sincerity and the quality of their research and the openness of their mind and the substance of their debate.

I fully expect them to be human and capable of being wound up, frustrated, and emotional.

That's very different from being utterly insincere, and only joining threads to hinder discussion while doing nothing to advance genuine research... Len.

Report alleged name-calling to the mods, not to me.

I.E. Insults are bad when people you disagree with make them but when someone you agree with gratuitously calls another member a Nazi it’s OK?

Oh and speaking of “quality of … research” You asked Craig if he could cite any example of Peter calling people Nazis after I’d posted two examples then without even bothering to take a look you took Peter’s word for it that Craig had insulted him first.

It appears that by “genuine research” you mean research that indicates conspiracies by the PTB/MIC etc etc and research that indicates otherwise is classified as fake.

"Home run"? No, more like a strike.

Reread post #78 as many times as necessary for it to sink in.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Len does seem to have a faith in Vigilant Guardians like Lee Hamilton and Phil Zelikow that could challenge the steepest religiosity, even that of General Boykins. Pitty we don't have a mountain protecting us like that great Nuclear Theologian of Colorado Springs!

[Pat Speer]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but, by the looks of it, it seems to be another, 'how dare someone not be a true believer" thread. Wow. Aren't there enough of those about Tim Gratz? Why is it that some feel there should be groupthink on the facts surrounding mysterious events? What is gained by that? In the 70s the liberal elite (basically those capable of thinking) gained a near consensus regarding women's rights, gay rights, the wrongness of American imperialism, and the relative harmlessness of Marijuana. This consensus led to "groupthink", where people were told these views were right, but were not given the opportunity to decide for themselves. This led to a backlash, that continues to this day. This backlash spread from the born-again movement, which was left behind, pun intended, by the 60's/70's cultural revolution. It was then exploited for political reasons by the Republican party through talk radio shills such as Rush Limbaugh. These pundits were able to sell those susceptible to nonsense the most ridiculous lies imaginable--under the guise that these lies were the truth denied them by this invisible liberal elite. Perhaps the most ridiculous and cynical, was the lie that cutting taxes on the wealthy would help the middle class. Another whopper was that private corporations are more efficient than the government, and that the public will benefit by privatizing the government.

I have friends with genius IQs who will tell you with a straight face that Bill Clinton was the worst president ever, because he lied to the American people. To him, this makes sense, because to him a hypocrite is worse than a thug or an incompetent. Worse than Nixon. Worse than Bush. This anger towards the hypocritical "Hippies" "FemiNazis" etc. who preached love, but acted with intolerance, is what FUELS the entire Neo-Con movement. It's why we're in Iraq. (The hippies said Vietnam was wrong and doomed for failure--well, let's show them.) It was never a movement of intellectuals or ideas, try as it might, but a movement of REJECTS--people who wanted to be cool and liberal--who wanted to be Alan Alda and Phil Donahue and Warren Beatty, but just couldn't pull it off, and just couldn't understand how an effete liberal GAY snob like Gore Vidal could be right more often than an effete conservative gay-acting snob like William F. Buckley. Many of them were physically ugly and/or awkward. It's not hard to figure out why men like Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove were attracted to the Republican Party. The Kennedys, rich and handsome, had become the symbols of the Democrats. There was a "No Ugly Dorks Need Apply" sign on the door to the DNC, so they went over to the other side of the street and hatched the Revenge of the Nerds.

Anyhow, IMO, groupthink is always the enemy, as it almost always leads to a backlash.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Pat-

Sceptics should always be welcome. When scepticism NEVER extends to the istitutions that are supposed to "Check and Balance" the official, Executive narrative of contraversial and world-changing events, and ONLY extends to criticisms of that official narration, then sceticism about such a constricted scepticism should be no less welcome.

[Len Colby]

Thanks Pat and Nathaniel you've restored my faith in this forum a bit.

This exchange happened on another thread (see it for context)

Craig:

"Exactly what has Len done in the post you are referencing that warrents a personl attaack. Have the poits Len has raied proven to be beyond your ability to rebut? Did he level a personal attack against you or Duane. The answer is no. You on the other hand launched an unprovoked personal attack."

Peter:

"Many of LCs posts to Jack, to me and many others are [iMO] attacks - some thinly disguised, many not. Oddly, I'm not the only one to think this. "

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...16356&st=30

OK Peter et. al. I’m waiting for examples of the “many…posts” I’ve made that were personal attacks and weren’t when I was responding in kind. Yes I’m sure that digging through them all a diligent member will be able to find some. What I’d like to see is that someone show that a significant number out of a representative sample.

Peter also wrote the following: "I could site others who have opposite positions on all to me who never offend, obstruct, villify or provoke. I don't mind a difference of opinion."

Care to cite any examples?

Edited August 29, 2007 by Len Colby

[Myra Bronstein]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but, by the looks of it, it seems to be another, 'how dare someone not be a true believer" thread. Wow. Aren't there enough of those about Tim Gratz? Why is it that some feel there should be groupthink on the facts surrounding mysterious events? What is gained by that? In the 70s the liberal elite (basically those capable of thinking) gained a near consensus regarding women's rights, gay rights, the wrongness of American imperialism, and the relative harmlessness of Marijuana. This consensus led to "groupthink", where people were told these views were right, but were not given the opportunity to decide for themselves. This led to a backlash, that continues to this day. This backlash spread from the born-again movement, which was left behind, pun intended, by the 60's/70's cultural revolution. It was then exploited for political reasons by the Republican party through talk radio shills such as Rush Limbaugh. These pundits were able to sell those susceptible to nonsense the most ridiculous lies imaginable--under the guise that these lies were the truth denied them by this invisible liberal elite. Perhaps the most ridiculous and cynical, was the lie that cutting taxes on the wealthy would help the middle class. Another whopper was that private corporations are more efficient than the government, and that the public will benefit by privatizing the government.

I have friends with genius IQs who will tell you with a straight face that Bill Clinton was the worst president ever, because he lied to the American people. To him, this makes sense, because to him a hypocrite is worse than a thug or an incompetent. Worse than Nixon. Worse than Bush. This anger towards the hypocritical "Hippies" "FemiNazis" etc. who preached love, but acted with intolerance, is what FUELS the entire Neo-Con movement. It's why we're in Iraq. (The hippies said Vietnam was wrong and doomed for failure--well, let's show them.) It was never a movement of intellectuals or ideas, try as it might, but a movement of REJECTS--people who wanted to be cool and liberal--who wanted to be Alan Alda and Phil Donahue and Warren Beatty, but just couldn't pull it off, and just couldn't understand how an effete liberal GAY snob like Gore Vidal could be right more often than an effete conservative gay-acting snob like William F. Buckley. Many of them were physically ugly and/or awkward. It's not hard to figure out why men like Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove were attracted to the Republican Party. The Kennedys, rich and handsome, had become the symbols of the Democrats. There was a "No Ugly Dorks Need Apply" sign on the door to the DNC, so they went over to the other side of the street and hatched the Revenge of the Nerds.

Anyhow, IMO, groupthink is always the enemy, as it almost always leads to a backlash.

Pat, I'm taking into account that you haven't read the entire thread, so it'd be easy for you to miss the fact that the issues have nothing to do with firm beliefs or group think. Firm heartfelt sincere beliefs, presented with facts and evidence, in a civil manner are food for thought and fodder for discussion and totally fine even if they don't concur with my heartfelt beliefs. Len seems to be the antithesis of a sincere believer.

If you read post #78 you'll see that I already made that exact point. But you were more eager to weigh in with your opinion than you were to see if your opinion was relevant. Maybe you'll go back and read it now. And while you're playing catch up on post reading you might want to also read Len's smear job on Peter's bio. Then you'll have some insight into the situation, which may come in handy the next time you feel compelled to opine and speechify.

[Len Colby]

"Jack White, who has had more experience with disseminators of disinformation

than anyone else in the JFK research community, developed an axiom some

time back, which holds that the more intense the attack, the closer you are to

the truth."

Jim Fetzer 9/11/05 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=39551

Did he quote you correctly Jack? Does that mean I'm close to the truth?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...;hl=provocation

Peter perhaps you can explain how my post constituted “provocation”

Pat, I'm taking into account that you haven't read the entire thread, so it'd be easy for you to miss the fact that the issues have nothing to do with firm beliefs or group think. Firm heartfelt sincere beliefs, presented with facts and evidence, in a civil manner are food for thought and fodder for discussion and totally fine even if they don't concur with my heartfelt beliefs. Len seems to be the antithesis of a sincere believer.

If you read post #78 you'll see that I already made that exact point…

I imagine Pat wouldn’t have offered his opinion unless he had read enough of the thread to come to an informed opinion. He is also reasonably familiar with my post history and eagerness to debate as we have participated on several threads together. There is a difference however between one saying they are open to people with contrary viewpoints and actually being so. I’m normally very civil when people show me the same curtsey. Though Peter, Mark, Jack and you keep saying or insinuating how uncivil/obstreperous my most of posts are I’ve only remember seeing one example (which I rebutted) cited.

…But you were more eager to weigh in with your opinion than you were to see if your opinion was relevant. Maybe you'll go back and read it now. And while you're playing catch up on post reading you might want to also read Len's smear job on Peter's bio. Then you'll have some insight into the situation, which may come in handy the next time you feel compelled to opine and speechify.

Perhaps you can explain to me how posting my answers to his inflammatory questions constituted a “smear job”? Did you actually look at my reply to him (see post # 50) or were “you were more eager to weigh in with your opinion than you were to see if your opinion was relevant”? Speaking of which on at least one occasion you obviously made a post on this thread without having read the existent ones because you asked Craig a question that I had already answered and there are other occasions when it is apparent you felt “compelled to opine and speechify” before doing your homework. Had you read post #63 before writing the above?

KATHY WROTE:

I would like to take responsibility for Len's posting on Peter's bio. I locked that thread because of a complaint. I assume,not wanting to start a new thread, Len went to the biography section to answer the questions Peter asked. I did not even think about him wanting to respond openly when I locked it.

Exactly and since a moderator (you) had locked it I posted there rather than here where I though it would draw less attention and thus be less inflammatory.

I believe somewhere Len said he moved it, but the content was only copied.

I though I had erased it but sure enough there it was last night, either I forgot to click “Submit Modified Post’ button or the software didn’t work properly (probably the former).

We moderators cannot move posts from the bio section, That can only be done by the administrators.

I do believe you can edit them (including erasing their content) though

It is my fault. I'm sorry for all the problems concerned with it. I would like to apologize to both Peter and Len. I certainly meant no ill will.

Kathy, I think you did the right thing (though I wished you’d waited a few more minutes because you locked when I was trying to reply). You are neither at fault nor have any reason to apologize to anyone (especially Peter) over your handling of this incident.

PETER WROTE:

Kathy, I hold no ill will toward you. I hope some Administrator will deal with removing it. BUT SOON PLEASE, OTHERWISE I WILL POST IT ON HIS BIOGRAPHY. Peter

Peter by the time you made that post I’d already erased it. If you want to post it and/or your reply on my bio go ahead. I still have no idea what the big deal is; you asked me inflammatory questions I replied.

[Kevin M. West]

About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego.

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples?

[Duane Daman]

About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego.

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples?

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you are pretending to be incapable of understanding a little tactic known as GOADING ?!?.... Len is intelligent enough not to use specific words that would be considered insults , but rather resorts to number 18 of the '25 Rules of Disinformation' , in his need to attempt to debunk any forum member who doesn't ascribe to his official government version belief system ....You also use this particular tactic .

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents --- If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Edited August 30, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you are pretending to be incapable of understang a little tactic known as GOADING ?!?.... Len is intelligent enough not to use specific words that would be considered insults , but rather resorts to number 18 of the '25 Rules of Disinformation' , in his need to attempt to debunk any forum member who doesn't ascribe to his official government version belief system ....You also use this particular tactic .

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents --- If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Why does it not suprise me that you'd once again respond to a question not directed at you just so you can spout some nonsense about your '25 rules'?

If he's goading you, that's something that you can quote and show examples of. It's not some ethereal concept that only the supposed victim can observe, it's plain text right here in front of everyone. Stop with the excuses, and show some examples if you're going to accuse someone of something.

[Duane Daman]

Now why doesn't it surprise me that you are pretending to be incapable of understang a little tactic known as GOADING ?!?.... Len is intelligent enough not to use specific words that would be considered insults , but rather resorts to number 18 of the '25 Rules of Disinformation' , in his need to attempt to debunk any forum member who doesn't ascribe to his official government version belief system ....You also use this particular tactic .

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents --- If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

Why does it not suprise me that you'd once again respond to a question not directed at you just so you can spout some nonsense about your '25 rules'?

If he's goading you, that's something that you can quote and show examples of. It's not some ethereal concept that only the supposed victim can observe, it's plain text right here in front of everyone. Stop with the excuses, and show some examples if you're going to accuse someone of something.

You really are quite transparent ...

Any member here can reply to any post they want to .. It's called freedom of speech ... or does that not go along with your particular belief system ?

I am not going to waste my time quoting examples of Len's goading , as they do nothing but distact even more from the issues being discussed here ... but if you're really all that interested in reading examples of Len's sly tactics , then do what Peter suggested ... Read any of his posts directed to me , Peter Lemkin or Jack White , and I do believe even you will understand not only his pattern , but his intent .

Edited August 30, 2007 by Duane Daman

[Kevin M. West]

About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego.

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples?

Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly.....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116476

I read that entire thread. What it sounds like to me is that you guys can't back up all this crap about Len. Saying 'go read his posts' is the equivilent of saying "I'm right and I don't have to show any evidence because it's so obvious". It doesn't work that way, back up your claims or stop making them.

Speaking of goading, Duane, did you notice how Peter insinuated that I'm slow and don't catch on quickly? But it's ok if he does it, right?

[Duane Daman]

About 90% of you posts [iMO] are inflaminatory and provocations mixed wth an over-inflated ego.

You keep saying that, but I'm not seeing it, why don't you back up that claim with some examples?

Stop hiding underwater and research his posts on the site for yourself. Or read this by others who catch on more quickly.....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=116476

I read that entire thread. What it sounds like to me is that you guys can't back up all this crap about Len. Saying 'go read his posts' is the equivilent of saying "I'm right and I don't have to show any evidence because it's so obvious". It doesn't work that way, back up your claims or stop making them.

Speaking of goading, Duane, did you notice how Peter insinuated that I'm slow and don't catch on quickly? But it's ok if he does it, right?

Since you insist on playing this silly game , here are two of many examples of Len's GOADING TACTICS .

I don't have the time right now , but just to satisify you , I will find the time later to quote more examples of Len's behavior which seems to be upsetting several of the members here .

.................................

Posted on: Yesterday, 01:26 PM

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1770

Joined: 5-September 05

From: Brazil

Member No.: 3442

OK so you want us to believe that when you wrote:

- there hadn't been "any formal government investigation into 9/11"

you really meant:

- "there hadn't been "any HONEST formal INDEPENDENT government investigation into INSIDER TRADING RELATED TO 9/11"?

Is that the story you wanna run with? Are people supposed to divine what you really mean when you say or write something else? What exactly did you mean by an “independent” “government” investigation? Aren’t the words in quotes antonyms in your lexicon?

That’s neat trick. When shown to be wrong you say, “I didn't really mean what I said, I obviously meant something else”. Sorry but I’m not buying it.

Also how do you know the SEC’s investigation was a pretense? Can you back this with information other than some articles written more than a few weeks after the fact or anything from someone with expertise in financial matters? Anything that refutes the information in the links I posted? No, you assume it was a pretense because it did come to same uninformed conclusion you did. Your logic seems circular.

1) There was insider trading related to 9/11

2) The SEC said they did uncover any

3) Therefore their investigation was a sham

4) They would only do that if they were covering for the culprits in or tied to the government.

5) Therefore there was an inside job

6) Therefore there was insider training

“your zeal to always try to prove me wrong about everything”

Oh yeah Duane there lots of people out to get you. I “always try to prove [you] wrong”? Let’s try a reality check now why don’t we? Why don’t you take a look and see how many of your posts I reply to and see how many of my posts are at all related to anything you’ve said.

..............................................

Posted on: Today, 12:41 AM

Super Member

Group: Members

Posts: 1770

Joined: 5-September 05

From: Brazil

Member No.: 3442

I've replied to the 'side show' above on "my" thread. I was wondering if any more evidence of insider trading will be forth coming?

...........................

More to come later .

[Kevin M. West]

That's it?

Duane, Len rightfully called you out for retroactively declaring that you meant something else, correctly pointed out the flaws in your argument, and asked for more evidence. Disagreeing with you and asking you to back up your claims with evidence is not 'inflamitory' or 'provocative'.

Peter, again, telling me to go read his entire history on this forum is not evidence, it's dismissal. If he's so bad, you should have no problem coming up with a few specific examples. As you're the one currently accusing him, that's your job, not mine. And no, those links are not remotely related to the issue at hand.

[Duane Daman]

That's it?

Duane, Len rightfully called you out for retroactively declaring that you meant something else, correctly pointed out the flaws in your argument, and asked for more evidence. Disagreeing with you and asking you to back up your claims with evidence is not 'inflamitory' or 'provocative'.

Peter, again, telling me to go read his entire history on this forum is not evidence, it's dismissal. If he's so bad, you should have no problem coming up with a few specific examples. As you're the one currently accusing him, that's your job, not mine. And no, those links are not remotely related to the issue at hand.

No , that's not "it" ...There's plenty more where that came from .

Are you being deliberately obtuse about this , or do you really not understand the meaning of the word goading ?

It was not WHAT Len said ... it was the WAY he said it ... Oh , and he didn't point out any flaws in my argument ( which was a quick reply to Mark's post ) ... he posted what he did to goad me into an argument with him , hoping that I would insult him in return , and then he could make me out as the one causing the problem by being insulting .

Comprende' ?