Did fallacious Fetzer fabricates a farce?

[Charles Drago]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

Accordingly:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Charles Drago

Edited February 15, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Evan Burton]

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

[David G. Healy]

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

Len Colby needs defending by a MOD? LMAO!

[Matthew Lewis]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

Accordingly:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Charles Drago

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

[Charles Drago]

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

Evan,

Such a simple-minded reading of my response stands as a self-indictment of intellectual failing upon which I cannot hope to expand.

You are dismissed.

Charles

[Guest David Guyatt]

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

Odd that, Evan. I read Charles post in a very different light.

It seemed to me his objections about debating with Sir Hiss were set out as clear as could possibly be.

It is not a simple 'either or' situation as you suggest, but more complex than that.

But I know you to be a fair man and I commend you for jumping to the defence of a friend.

For my cents worth, however, I heartily agree with Charles on the futility of wasting any time whatsoever on the slanted one. I also decline to engage with him as a matter of principle - no matter what provocations and taunts he uses. Been there. Done that. Own the T-shirt. Seen the film.

Waste of bloody time, if you ask me.

If he were half honest I would debate with him - no matter any differences of opinion -- that, after all, is one of the reasons I visit this forum. But with his nibs, it is pointless; futile, fruitless, aimless, barren, hopeless, unproductive, unavailing, useless and abortive.

You get my drift.

He just doesn't know (or more likely prefers to ignore) the difference between truth and deceit -- and all the jaw-jaw in the world ain't going to change that simple character defect.

In case there are new members here who wish to follow some of the background of this ongoing contentiousness and the disdain held for our resident Wormtongue, they can read selected extracts from A Brief History of the Art of Spinning, authored by the saint himself in the following link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11761

But hey, don't do it, I say. It's the devils tedium itself...

[Charles Drago]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

Accordingly:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Charles Drago

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

Because such a misreading is the best you can offer.

By the by, it's "inflammatory."

And it's a term, not a "phrase."

[Charles Drago]

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

Odd that, Evan. I read Charles post in a very different light.

It seemed to me his [Charles'] objections about debating with Sir Hiss were set out as clear as could possibly be.

It is not a simple 'either or' situation as you suggest, but more complex than that.

If he ["Colby"] were half honest I would debate with him - no matter any differences of opinion -- that, after all, is one of the reasons I visit this forum. But with his nibs, it is pointless; futile, fruitless, aimless, barren, hopeless, unproductive, unavailing, useless and abortive.

Thank you, David.

In terms of the joys and benefits of honorable debate, and within the context of this Forum, I would cite -- as one of many examples -- my extended, collegial, productive, and enlightening (for me, at least) debate with Robert Charles-Dunne regarding the conspiratorial function of tying LHO to Fidel.

Our disagreement could not have been more profound -- or more positive in its impacts upon the search for truth and justice in the JFK case.

As for Evan: I've always liked the fellow, but I'm not sure how to engage so literal-minded a correspondent.

[Len Colby]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

[...]

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

Amazing Evan politely asks "Drago" to back his undocumented claims, something which he is obliged to do under forum rules and he classifies it as a “schoolyard taunt” to be ‘caved’ to. Obviously he wants to be able to spew what ever rubbish comes to his over active imagination and objects to being asked for evidence. If he thinks Evan’s question was a taunt no wonder he thinks I’m a provocateur! But then again there’s no accounting for what some people will think!

[Len Colby]

Okay - so Len is either correct, or you are unable to prove him wrong. Thanks.

Evan,

Such a simple-minded reading of my response stands as a self-indictment of intellectual failing upon which I cannot hope to expand.

You are dismissed.

Charles

Once again "Drago" shows that he is quite adept at insulting, but probally little else. Evan is able to see through his smoke screen which amounts to little else than a verbose attempt to avoid doing what he is unable to i.e show that what he says about me is true. Drago saying that he has "intellectual failing " because of this is like a conman telling an attempted 'mark' who won't fall for his scam a "fool" for passing up a "golden opputunity".

[Len Colby]

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

<DELETED>

Because such a misreading is the best you can offer.

By the by, it's "inflammatory."

And it's a term, not a "phrase."

Oh great he made a typo therefore his point is invalid.

"A phrase is a group of two or more grammatically linked words without a subject and predicate -- a group of grammatically-linked words with a subject and predicate is called a clause".

http://www.arts.uottawa.ca/writcent/hypergrammar/bldphr.html

"A phrase is a syntactic structure that consists of more than one word but lacks the subject - predicate organization of a clause."

www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAPhrase.htm

So "deliberately inflammatory" qualifies, so does “utter fool”.

Len - I do consider the deleted phrase to be deliberately insulting and uncalled for. First and only warning regarding personal attacks of that nature. By all means express your opinion, but do it in a way that is more acceptable, please.

Edited February 15, 2008 by Evan Burton
Removed ad hom

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

If I read the time line correctly, I had

already replied to Colby's grotesque

misrepresentations on another forum.

Here is what I posted there, which he,

I infer, knew before he posted here.

Before or after, this is a nice example

of the action of a man without scruples.

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:53 -0600 [02/14/2008 04:53:53 PM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To:

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Did fallacious Fetzer fabricates a farce? The death threats that never happened.

All,

The situation was not as Leonard suggests.

(1) I was informed by several sources that

a member of Scholars, who had written a

study about the WTC, had been threatened

to the extent that he was withdrawing his

paper, dropping his membership in Scholars,

and retreating with his family for safety.

(2) Unable to contact him personally, I

devised a method for keeping the paper up

even though he was withdrawing as author,

namely: by making it a publication of

the society. I was not endorsing its

contents but his right of publication.

(3) I did what I could at the time to

uphold freedom of speech and freedom

of inquiry. The journal has always

been under the control of Steve Jones,

not me. If this were a big deal, then

I find it surprising that the original

author has allowed it to remain there.

This appears to me to be a nice example

of scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I took the strong action I did based

upon my understanding of the facts at

the time. No one, myself included, has

any reason to apologize for standing up

for freedom of speech and of inquiry.

Jim

Edited February 15, 2008 by James H. Fetzer

[Peter McKenna]

If I read the time line correctly, I had

already replied to Colby's grotesque

misrepresentations on another forum.

Here is what I posted there, which he,

I infer, knew before he posted here.

Before or after, this is a nice example

of the action of a man without scruples.

Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:53 -0600 [02/14/2008 04:53:53 PM CST]

From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

To:

Cc: jfetzer@d.umn.edu

Subject: Re: Did fallacious Fetzer fabricates a farce? The death threats that never happened.

All,

The situation was not as Leonard suggests.

(1) I was informed by several sources that

a member of Scholars, who had written a

study about the WTC, had been threatened

to the extent that he was withdrawing his

paper, dropping his membership in Scholars,

and retreating with his family for safety.

(2) Unable to contact him personally, I

devised a method for keeping the paper up

even though he was withdrawing as author,

namely: by making it a publication of

the society. I was not endorsing its

contents but his right of publication.

(3) I did what I could at the time to

uphold freedom of speech and freedom

of inquiry. The journal has always

been under the control of Steve Jones,

not me. If this were a big deal, then

I find it surprising that the original

author has allowed it to remain there.

This appears to me to be a nice example

of scraping the bottom of the barrel.

I took the strong action I did based

upon my understanding of the facts at

the time. No one, myself included, has

any reason to apologize for standing up

for freedom of speech and of inquiry.

Jim

FYU

Your post is dated and timed: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 16:53:53 -0600 [02/14/2008 04:53:53 PM CST]

Len's Post is dated "Yesterday" (2/14/08) and timed at 8:51, which is UK time and 6 hours ahead of CST, making the time 2:51 PM CST (or 14:51 CST), about two hours prior to your post, above (if the date stamp is correct for the time of the post),

Edited February 15, 2008 by Peter McKenna

[Matthew Lewis]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

Accordingly:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Charles Drago

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

Because such a misreading is the best you can offer.

By the by, it's "inflammatory."

And it's a term, not a "phrase."

Oh no! A spelling mistake! How ever will I survive?

And it is both a term and a phrase.

[David G. Healy]

If what you say is true, Charles, they why won't (or is it can't?) you provide evidence of where Len is wrong? Surely that is the best way to counter an argument - prove it wrong.

Evan,

I -- and others -- have reached the conclusion that "Colby" is an agent provocateur (hereinafter AP).

Spreading disinformation is one of the AP's primary functions.

The key ingredient to all disinformation is a grain of truth.

Over the long haul, a "Colby" may be expected to post factually correct information and defensible analyses of persons and events. The AP does so in order to establish credentials which in turn will be referenced to support the AP's later spurious and sophistic pronouncements.

When exposed to the light, the AP will cite previous instances of truth-telling and then challenge its discoverers to respond to its subsequent statements on their own merits.

If I were to accept "Colby's" challenge -- or, for that matter, cave to your schoolyard taunt -- by offering serious and honorable responses to what I and others are satisfied are ludicruous and dishonorable postings -- by definition I would be ceding the contest to "Colby's" controllers.

SUCCESS FOR THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR IS DEFINED AS ENGAGING ITS TARGETS -- REGARDLESS OF THE ENGAGEMENTS' OUTCOMES.

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR'S MASTERS IS TO CREATE THE ILLUSION OF LEVEL INTELLECTUAL AND MORAL PLAYING FIELDS FOR THEIR LIES ON THE GREAT BATTLEGROUND OF HISTORY.

THE ONLY WAYS TO DEFEAT THE AGENT PROVOCATEUR -- AND, BY EXTENSION, ITS MASTERS -- ARE TO REVEAL ITS MISSIONS AND TO TREAT IT WITH UTTER CONTEMPT.

Accordingly:

WARNING: In my personal opinion: "Len Colby" is an agent provocateur, a breeder of disinformation. It is likely that "he" is in fact a composite character, a fiction created to attack the truth and those who speak it. But even if "Colby" exists as advertised, "he" yet serves the agendas of the assassins of John F. Kennedy. Informed, cynical readings of "his" posts will lead to deeper understandings of our enemies, their methods, and their goals.

Charles Drago

Why is it the first phrase that comes to my mind is "deliberately inflamatory"?

Because such a misreading is the best you can offer.

By the by, it's "inflammatory."

And it's a term, not a "phrase."

Oh no! A spelling mistake! How ever will I survive?

And it is both a term and a phrase.

Oh most Lone Nuts survive, kinda reminds me of that battery bunny, the Nutter's just go on a-tick'in...