Phil Spector on John Lennon assassination

[Michael Hogan]

I never said I didn't quote him out of context.

Just for clarification, are you admitting that you quoted him out of context?

Go back and read. That should clarify things for you.

Oh, yeah Mike I believe you.

What you believe or don't believe is pretty low on the scale of my concerns.

[Len Colby]

I never said I didn't quote him out of context.

Just for clarification, are you admitting that you quoted him out of context?

Go back and read. That should clarify things for you.

Perhaps instead of engaging in evasion and semantic gymnastics you could give us a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, did you quote Lennon out of context?

[Len Colby]

Only in the world of Len does not wanting to be met at an airport by a nascent-yuppie-prig Jerry Rubin constitute "evidence".

Of anything. He compensates for his edifice of quicksand by the soaring confidence and finality of his assertions. He'd be great on the Sunday talk shows. All they ever do is agree with the government positions between commercials for General Electric and Boeing.

Evidence? Who needs it when your swimming in conventional wisdom-- and look how fast thats taken us places!

If what you understood from Lennon’s comments was that he didn't want "to be met at an airport by a nascent-yuppie-prig Jerry Rubin" then you need to reread them. That's not what he said.

I agree that one side of this debate has failed to produce any evidence, none has been posted here indicating Lennon remained interested in politics after the summer of 1972; Attending the Carter inauguration doesn’t prove mush since the Marshall Tucker Band among other did as well. You can cling to the 1975 quote about being “jumpy” but then you’d have to ignore that he was referring to his visa status. You’d also have to ignore that earlier in the same interview he compared his political activism to a “straw hat” and explained he wanted to keep changing his “straw hat”. You’d also have ignore the comment from his 1980 interview saying his activism was due “guilt about money” and that his efforts to better the world would be limited to donating 10% of his income to causes selected by Yoko so please don’t send him any “crap about saving the blacks…" etc. If you don't agree with my analysis of what he meant in those interviews perhaps you could sahre yours with us.

Ironic that you are so down on Rubin for abandoning his commitment to revolutionary politics because Lennon’s flirtation with it was much shorter lived and more superficial.

I'm a big fan of Lennon the musician, he Dylan and Lou Reed were the three great songwriters to emerge in the 60's but as a social activist he was a footnote figure for a short period of his life.

[Michael Hogan]

I never said I didn't quote him out of context.

Just for clarification, are you admitting that you quoted him out of context?

Go back and read. That should clarify things for you.

Perhaps instead of engaging in evasion and semantic gymnastics you could give us a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, did you quote Lennon out of context?

If you think the above is evasion and semantic gymnastics then your mindset is even more limited than I thought.

Edited April 14, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

I never said I didn't quote him out of context.

Just for clarification, are you admitting that you quoted him out of context?

Go back and read. That should clarify things for you.

Perhaps instead of engaging in evasion and semantic gymnastics you could give us a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer, did you quote Lennon out of context?

If you think the above is evasion and semantic gymnastics then your mindset is even more limited than I thought.

You can insult me all you want but that won't change the fact that you ARE being evasive. Posts # 73, 75 & 78 were all prime examples of evasion.

“I never said I didn't quote him out of context.” Was a beautiful feat of evasion and double negative semantic gymnastics especially as it came shortly after you denied quoting him out of context.

I find it humorous that you spend more time and effort in evading than answering. It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, just 2 or 3 keystrokes. I’ll make it even easier for you; you can simply type ‘y’ or ‘n’.

[Michael Hogan]

You can insult me all you want but that won't change the fact that you ARE being evasive. Posts # 73, 75 & 78 were all prime examples of evasion.

“I never said I didn't quote him out of context.” Was a beautiful feat of evasion and double negative semantic gymnastics especially as it came shortly after you denied quoting him out of context.

I find it humorous that you spend more time and effort in evading than answering. It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, just 2 or 3 keystrokes. I’ll make it even easier for you; you can simply type ‘y’ or ‘n’.

On April 9th I made my first post on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=142541

It was a simple statement of Lennon's made in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. I offered it with no comment or opinion.

Colby responded to Nathaniel, not to me. The next thing I know, Colby is attempting to indict my credibility on another, unrelated thread by saying:

I wouldn’t have thought the guy who made incorrect statements about the 9/11 Commission Report, just quoted John Lennon out of context, and twice recently falsely accused me of misquoting him would have the chutzpah to accuse me of being inaccurate, but Hogan has proven otherwise. I’m content to let the readers of this thread who are familiar with our (Fetzer’s, Hogan’s and my) pronouncements here and elsewhere to draw their own conclusions. (Colby then proceeded to give his own incomplete version of events) And no it wouldn’t surprise me if ‘the usual suspects’ voice their agreement with Hogan.

Since Hogan seems to be intentionally trying to derail this thread this will PROBABLLY be my last word about the above here.

So Colby brings up Lennon with me on a 9/11 thread, and then accuses me of trying to derail a thread.

Later he accuses me of something I never said. He repeats this falsehood in his latest post quoted above.

On another thread Hogan denied that he quoted Lennonout of context:

Here's another example of Colby twisting my words:

So, then I imagine Hogan can cite “countless” examples of where I have accused “members of this Forum” of being anti-Semitic or racist etc without offering any evidence.

When challenged and provided with my exact words, Colby still falsely maintained I insinuated it.

I could cite many more examples, but I don't think I need to in order to make my point. The above is consistent with the methods Colby employs here.

The fact is he doesn't like my criticism of his methods and would love to discredit me.

To do that, the best he could come up is what he stated in the quote above. I've addressed the Lennon thing, both in this thread and this post.

Let me quote Colby from above:

I wouldn’t have thought the guy who....twice recently falsely accused me of misquoting him would have the chutzpah to accuse me of being inaccurate, but Hogan has proven otherwise.

When shown to be wrong, Colby commonly resorts to simply making unrelated and often unwarranted charges against his critic.

I've heard Colby echo similar sentiments so many times on various threads, I've lost count. He's referring to an exchange we had on the Atta thread. I've had a final reply ready for over a month but have chosen to delay posting it. I've wanted to see Colby repeat his charge over and over and he has obliged me.

Colby has made a mountain out of a molehill on this Lennon thread, and he did the same thing with me on the Atta thread. It's all he's got.

[Dawn Meredith]

Do coincidences occur in this case? I guess so but yesterday I had an intersting one that just resulted in this post. Yesterday I noticed that Len Colby has a web site just below his sig. SO I went to the web site and discovered it to be devoted to trashing the truth movement in 9-11. Later in the day I was telling Terry Mauro- ( via phone)- about this, as we pondered "just who is this Len Colby?" It's one thing to post here and continually be on the wrong side- (in the opinion of most posters) but to devote an entire website, now that takes a lot of time. More organized if you will, I'd even venture to say being paid to do so... Possibly...

So, imagine my surprise this am when I looked in on this thread and discovered that both Colby's sig and website is now suddently missing. Interesting timing. So, Len just why did you suddenly remove this information?

Hmmm????

Dawn

[Len Colby]

The problem is that you are a very unobservant person

Do coincidences occur in this case? I guess so but yesterday I had an intersting one that just resulted in this post. Yesterday I noticed that Len Colby has a web site just below his sig.

That link has been there over a month

SO I went to the web site and discovered it to be devoted to trashing the truth movement in 9-11.

Debunking rather than trashing, I guess it depends on your POV. I said in the intro that I believe most truthers are sincere but misguided “I have no doubts that most members of the “truth movement” sincerely believe all the nonsense that they spout”.

Later in the day I was telling Terry Mauro- ( via phone)- about this, as we pondered "just who is this Len Colby?"

WOW You talk about me with other member’s of the forum? I should feel honored, LOL

It's one thing to post here and continually be on the wrong side- (in the opinion of most posters) but to devote an entire website, now that takes a lot of time. More organized if you will,

Remember what I said about you being unobservant? I made two entries (not including a short intro) over a month ago, yeah I work on my blog 24/7!

I'd even venture to say being paid to do so... Possibly...

So, imagine my surprise this am when I looked in on this thread and discovered that both Colby's sig and website is now suddently missing. Interesting timing. So, Len just why did you suddenly remove this information?

Hmmm????

LOL

Why would I have put the url to the blog in my signature if I didn’t want people here to know about it?

How did you imagine I’d know when you noticed the blog? Oh yeah that’s right “they” have got your phone bugged! You do know they can listen to what you say in your house even with it on the hook. And your cellphone? Heck we can ‘hear’ what you are thinking if it gets within 6 feet of your head.

The problem once again is your lack of observation skills. AFAIK my sig has been there since I joined this forum and the link to the blog has been up over a month. You wanna know what happened? Either a) you ate some moldy rye bread, a glitch caused my sig to disappear or most likely c) you were not logged in when you “noticed” that my sig and blog link “suddently” (sic) were “missing”, you failed to notice that no one’s signatures appeared and then failed to notice that mine (like every one else’s) ‘suddenly appeared’ after you logged on. You wanna try a test? Look at the bottoms of everyone’s posts, then log in or log out and look again, seesh.

Note to mods or administrators, is there any way of verifying that my signature including my blog url has been unaltered for over a month?

[Len Colby]

I’ll reply to the Lennon related stuff here and the rest elsewhere when I get around to it..

You can insult me all you want but that won't change the fact that you ARE being evasive. Posts # 73, 75 & 78 were all prime examples of evasion.

“I never said I didn't quote him out of context.” Was a beautiful feat of evasion and double negative semantic gymnastics especially as it came shortly after you denied quoting him out of context.

I find it humorous that you spend more time and effort in evading than answering. It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question, just 2 or 3 keystrokes. I’ll make it even easier for you; you can simply type ‘y’ or ‘n’.

On April 9th I made my first post on this thread: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=142541

It was a simple statement of Lennon's made in an interview with Rolling Stone magazine. I offered it with no comment or opinion.

About 2 ½ hours after I asked Nathaniel why Lennon made no political acts or statements after the summer of 1972 you posted the following quote:

"I'm even nervous about commenting on politics. They've got me that jumpy these days. But it's a bit of an illusion to think 'cause Old Nick (Nixon) went that it's all changed.

If it's changed, prove it, show me the change." (John Lennon to Pete Hamill, June 5 1975 issue of Rolling Stone)

Even though it’s true you “offered it with no comment or opinion” it was obviously meant to imply he stopped “commenting on politics” because “they” had got him “jumpy”. That’s clearly how Nathaniel interpreted it. Because he wrote:

“Jumpy huh? And is this a sign of political apathy, r something quite different, that may be situational, subject to change should the context suddelny veer?”

Colby responded to Nathaniel, not to me.

Not relevant, in any case my reply concerned your post

Later he accuses me of something I never said. He repeats this falsehood in his latest post quoted above.

On another thread Hogan denied that he quoted Lennonout of context:

Let’s see I said you had “just quoted John Lennon out of context” to which you replied:

“My quote of Lennon was his complete, specific answer to one specific question from the interviewer. Colby, himself more than willing to quote Lennon out of context, wrote this: “Did you bother to look at the excerpts I posted from his (Lennon's) September 1980 interview for Playboy?””

Are you saying that wasn’t a denial you’d taken him out of context? Is that really the position you want to stick with? Bizarre. Also I asked you for examples of me taking Lennon out of context but you have yet to oblige.

Your post reminds me of an anecdote about Hugo Black who served as a senator for 10 years before being named to the Supreme Court. After one of his colleagues gave a speech that lasted several hours he asked the other senator ‘Are you in favor of or opposed to the bill?’

I’m still waiting for a simple one key stroke answer to a simple question; did you take the Lennon quote out of context? Y/N

You seem to be acknowledging you did, but for sake of clarity you should answer unambiguously.

[Maggie Hansen]

Blog: http://lies-of-the-truth-movement.blogspot.com/

Here is the link to Len's blog.

Good on you for starting this blog Len. You must feel very passionate about this subject to bother about setting up a blog and all.

I find it a bit odd though as you are not really qualified - structural engineer, fighter pilot, emergency response team member, explosives/demolition expert etc to speak on such a complex subject. There are others out there in the anti-'truth' movement, if you will, who are better placed to comment. All you can really do is refer others to their work. Is that all you want to do? You don't have very much there in your profile area either. It would look more credible if there was more information there about you and the other stuff in general.

Nice graphics though.

[Michael Hogan]

Even though it’s true you “offered it with no comment or opinion” it was obviously meant to imply he stopped “commenting on politics” because “they” had got him “jumpy”. That’s clearly how Nathaniel interpreted it.

It wasn't meant to imply anything. His statement speaks for itself. I posted something Lennon said, all your in and out of context mumbo-jumbo notwithstanding.

Colby responded to Nathaniel, not to me.

Not relevant, in any case my reply concerned your post

What's relevant is that you brought it up on an unrelated thread and claimed it reflected negatively on my credibility, at the same time accusing me of derailing the thread. Not only that, you later distorted what I said. That's how far you have to reach.

“I never said I didn't quote him out of context.” Was a beautiful feat of evasion and double negative semantic gymnastics especially as it came shortly after you denied quoting him out of context.

Only to someone who has difficulty understanding simple sentences and difficulty constructing sentences that are accurate and make sense.

I’m still waiting for a simple one key stroke answer to a simple question; did you take the Lennon quote out of context? Y/N

You seem to be acknowledging you did, but for sake of clarity you should answer unambiguously.

You're not my interrogator. I've made things as clear as possible for you on this thread and you act like you can't grasp it. Not my fault.

Also I asked you for examples of me taking Lennon out of context but you have yet to oblige.

I quoted you. Those were the examples. I never bothered reading your excerpts.

You described them yourself as excerpts. (Colby: "Did you bother to look at the excerpts I posted from his September 1980 interview for Playboy?") Since you have an affinity for dictionary definitions, Merriam-Webster defines excerpt: 1: to select (a passage) for quoting : extract 2: to take or publish extracts from (as a book)

That's what I did. That's what you said you did. You choose to dwell on all these picayune issues because they distract from your propensity to make hypocritical and inaccurate statements.

Previously, I asked if your game could get any weaker. You've proven that it could.

I can't help it if you find the truth about your actions insulting.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Len Colby]

You seem to be conflating excerpting with quoting out of context. They are not the same, in the later a longer text is excerpted in a way that changes it’s meaning. Removed from its context of referring to his immigration case and coming on the heels of a post where I asked why Lennon had abandoned political activism your excerpt gave the impression he did this because “they” made him “jumpy”. That’s not what he meant to say as his earlier explanation for why he moved on from politics made clear.

Contextomy: the art of quoting out of context

Matthew S. McGlone

University of Texas at Austin, USA

‘Contextomy’ refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as ‘quoting out of context’. Contextomy is employed in contemporary mass media to promote products, defame public figures and misappropriate rhetoric. A contextomized quotation not only prompts audiences to form a false impression of the source’s intentions, but can contaminate subsequent interpretation of the quote when it is restored to its original context. The author delineates this counterintuitive consequence of contextomy in an analysis of conservative politicians’ quotation of Rev. Martin Luther King in their campaigns to eliminate affirmative action programs in the US.

http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/511

My excerpts didn’t change the meaning of what Lennon was saying, yours did. That’s the difference between excerpting (honestly) quoting out of context.

[Michael Hogan]

You seem to be conflating excerpting with quoting out of context. They are not the same, in the later a longer text is excerpted in a way that changes it’s meaning. Removed from its context of referring to his immigration case and coming on the heels of a post where I asked why Lennon had abandoned political activism your excerpt gave the impression he did this because “they” made him “jumpy”. That’s not what he meant to say as his earlier explanation for why he moved on from politics made clear.

Contextomy: the art of quoting out of context

Matthew S. McGlone

University of Texas at Austin, USA

‘Contextomy’ refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original linguistic context in a way that distorts the source’s intended meaning, a practice commonly referred to as ‘quoting out of context’. (bold added) Contextomy is employed in contemporary mass media to promote products, defame public figures and misappropriate rhetoric. A contextomized quotation not only prompts audiences to form a false impression of the source’s intentions, but can contaminate subsequent interpretation of the quote when it is restored to its original context. The author delineates this counterintuitive consequence of contextomy in an analysis of conservative politicians’ quotation of Rev. Martin Luther King in their campaigns to eliminate affirmative action programs in the US.

http://mcs.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/27/4/511

My excerpts didn’t change the meaning of what Lennon was saying, yours did. That’s the difference between excerpting (honestly) quoting out of context.

By God, that's exactly what you do on all these threads. Thanks for the word.

That’s the difference between excerpting (honestly) quoting out of context.

Well said.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Guest Stephen Turner]

FWIW.

Richard DeLello's book about Apple "The longest cocktail party" talks at lenght about the nutters who attempted to attach themselves to the Beatles, and John in particular. This was partly the Beatles own fault for their original encouragement of said nutters, and their habit of walking around the Apple building, and surrounding streets with little, or no protection.

DeLello talks at lenght about how some of these people flipped from love to outright hate when, what they percieved as a reasonable request, was refused, some of them turned violent and had to be physically restrained. One chap phoned Apple to complain about Lennon wearing an army jacket in an interview where he and Yoko urged an end to the war in Vietnam,He claimed that Lennon needed teaching a lesson, and, having murdered many "Japs" in the warhow he was capable.