The Case of Len Colby

[Craig Lamson]

Kind Readers,

Please review the following posts:

Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

In your considered opinion, were they written by the same person?

It appears that it is paranoia run amuck...

Edited August 11, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Charles Drago]

How dare Colby use John Simkin's words to claim I made personal attacks on him?

Because, Michael, such is the brief of his ilk.

"He" once attempted to decontextualize one of my posts, and I hammered "him" mercilessly until moderators had to act on my behalf and "he" backed down.

"Colby" will not deal with me because "he" dare(s) not.

Understand "Colby's" brief, and "he" is easily dispatched.

Charles

"Drago" - I already called you on your completely inaccurate retelling of what transpired, but of course you failed to reply or make a correction.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151859

I "will not deal with you because I dare not"?!?! Absurd! I have in the past and will do so whenever I see fit.

"Colby" isn't earning "his" keep:

On the thread in question, I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building [the Pentagon] and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]."

"Colby" admits that "he" in fact -- and I quote "him" -- "truncated [that passage] to 'the near total absence of damage to the building' because ["Colby"] wasn’t responding to the part about the lawn."

"Truncated"???

How about "purposefully decontextualized"!!!

If, gentle reader, you cannot discern a conscious effort on the part of "Colby" to decontextualize my work in order to make it appear that I did not acknowledge or was not aware of damage to the Pentagon, then you should seek immediate entry to remedial reading classes.

As the evidence presented above clearly demonstrates, "Colby" cannot be trusted. Not here. Not anywhere.

"Colby" is beneath my contempt.

Read it again.

"Truncated" or "purposefully decontextualized"?

You decide.

Charles Drago

[Craig Lamson]

How dare Colby use John Simkin's words to claim I made personal attacks on him?

Because, Michael, such is the brief of his ilk.

"He" once attempted to decontextualize one of my posts, and I hammered "him" mercilessly until moderators had to act on my behalf and "he" backed down.

"Colby" will not deal with me because "he" dare(s) not.

Understand "Colby's" brief, and "he" is easily dispatched.

Charles

"Drago" - I already called you on your completely inaccurate retelling of what transpired, but of course you failed to reply or make a correction.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=151859

I "will not deal with you because I dare not"?!?! Absurd! I have in the past and will do so whenever I see fit.

"Colby" isn't earning "his" keep:

On the thread in question, I wrote, "the near total absence of damage to the building [the Pentagon] and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]."

"Colby" admits that "he" in fact -- and I quote "him" -- "truncated [that passage] to 'the near total absence of damage to the building' because ["Colby"] wasn’t responding to the part about the lawn."

"Truncated"???

How about "purposefully decontextualized"!!!

If, gentle reader, you cannot discern a conscious effort on the part of "Colby" to decontextualize my work in order to make it appear that I did not acknowledge or was not aware of damage to the Pentagon, then you should seek immediate entry to remedial reading classes.

As the evidence presented above clearly demonstrates, "Colby" cannot be trusted. Not here. Not anywhere.

"Colby" is beneath my contempt.

Read it again.

"Truncated" or "purposefully decontextualized"?

You decide.

Charles Drago

I've decided. It appears to be paranoia run amuck...

[Charles Drago]

I might add that one of this Forum's moderators agreed with me that "Colby" was unfairly misquoting me at the time of the original incident.

In Post #75 on the "Defense Historians Document 9/11" thread, Kathy Beckett, taking my point, wrote the following to "Colby":

Mr. Colby,

Please correct your quote regarding what Charles Drago actually said. That is only fair.

Charles wrote "the near total absence of damage to the building and adjacent grounds consistent with [the impact of a 757]" ,

not

"the near total absence of damage to the building ".

End of Beckett warning.

"Colby" is exposed. By "his" own words.

We must demonstrate zero tolerance for "Colby" and "his" ilk.

Charles Drago

Edited August 11, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Michael Hogan]

No Mike, to your credit you weren’t part of the hysterical lynch mob (my characterization, not his) that John was referring to and of course anyone reading this thread especially one who would be able to figure out I was referring to you (among others) would know that. But to imply that you haven’t engaged in personal attacks against or at least insulted me is to “Winston Smith” the truth. You are also among the group that has made ludicrous claims that I insulted them first.

Then why did you edit John's statement to make it seem that he was saying I engaged in personal attacks on you?

I've never claimed I haven't insulted you. I've endured plenty of your insulting rhetoric as well. It's clear we don't like each other.

Bottom line, when I suggested Evan go back and look for Maggie's question to find out what she asked, you jumped in and called that comment "nonesense."

Why was it nonsense for me to suggest that to Evan? You've never bothered to explain that.

My statement to Evan about you initiating the insults in that particular thread wasn't ludicrous. It was true. The record clearly shows it. You can repeat your false claims in every section of this Forum without

any documentation and they still won't be true. Just as your suggestion on this thread that John Simkin said I engaged in personal attacks on you isn't true.

And for the record, when Evan took your side in our discussion, and in doing so misinterpreted a Forum rule, my first words to him were simply: "I believe you're mistaken." You've left that out of all your accounts.

How dare you use John Simkin's words to claim I personally attacked you?

Edited August 11, 2008 by Michael Hogan

[Dawn Meredith]

Kind Readers,

Please review the following posts:

Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

In your considered opinion, were they written by the same person?

On the face of it it appears to be two different persons. The writing style is so different. However, that said, the first post could have been the result of sheer lazy swinging from the hip, while the second may have been given more thought. However, many of the words in the second post are not the kinds of words I have ever seen from this poster.

On the complaints thread Evan brough up the issue of how any of us can prove we are who we say we are and if members would be willing to do so. For myself I can offer a few proofs: I am listed both on google and on the TX Bar Website as an Austin attorney. (And so identify myself in my bio). I have met some forum members, email and phone conversation with others, Terry Mauro stayed at my home for 10 days in 06. I guess if we had to scan our drivers licences to prove we are who we say we are that would not be a big deal to me.

Dawn

[Evan Burton]

I'll remind EVERYONE to abide by Forum rules.

If they want to have a swipe at ME, and me alone (without swearing), please read my post on the complaints thread. It's open season on me.

Elsewhere you are to abide by Forum rules.

I would also remind people who - in protest - have changed their avatars to emoticons or images not of themselves.

Maggie - I asked you a few days ago. Please update your avatar within a few days or your posts will be made invisible until you do.

Other people - please amend you avatars to reflect Forum standards. You will have 1 week to do this, then all posts will be made invisible.

If you have reasons for not abiding by Forum rules, please contact John Simkin via PM and request a waiver.

Thank you.

[Len Colby]

No Mike, to your credit you weren’t part of the hysterical lynch mob (my characterization, not his) that John was referring to and of course anyone reading this thread especially one who would be able to figure out I was referring to you (among others) would know that. But to imply that you haven’t engaged in personal attacks against or at least insulted me is to “Winston Smith” the truth. You are also among the group that has made ludicrous claims that I insulted them first.

Then why did you edit John's statement to make it seem that he was saying I engaged in personal attacks on you?

I didn't that was your misinterpretation. What percentage of the people who read my post and figured out you were one of the people I was referring to do you think had not followed the Len Brazil thread? I'd say it was close to zero. You were however part of the group that was nonsensical attempts to claim I'd insulted them first. Speaking of which I'm still waiting for Dawn to back that claim.

I've never claimed I haven't insulted you. I've endured plenty of your insulting rhetoric as well. It's clear we don't like each other.

Bottom line, when I suggested Evan go back and look for Maggie's question to find out what she asked, you jumped in and called that comment "nonesense."

Why was it nonsense for me to suggest that to Evan? You've never bothered to explain that.

I was referring to your comment that Maggie's question had not he adequately addressed

My statement to Evan about you initiating the insults in that particular thread wasn't ludicrous. It was true. The record clearly shows it.

I don't consider saying someones comments are nonsense an insult.

You can repeat your false claims in every section of this Forum without

any documentation and they still won't be true. Just as your suggestion on this thread that John Simkin said I engaged in personal attacks on you isn't true.

And for the record, when Evan took your side in our discussion, and in doing so misinterpreted a Forum rule, my first words to him were simply: "I believe you're mistaken." You've left that out of all your accounts.

Not relevant, when tried to be diplomatic you replied with hostility told him he didn't have his facts straight. I don't think that phrase is insulting but you can't have both ways. If my saying your "comment was nonsense" was insulting so too was you telling Evan "you don't have your facts straight"

How dare you use John Simkin's words to claim I personally attacked you?

I didn't.

[Mark Stapleton]

Kind Readers,

Please review the following posts:

Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

In your considered opinion, were they written by the same person?

Those two posts were not written by the same person---unless Len has more problems than we thought.

[Mark Stapleton]

What about this, Len?

[Ron Ecker]

Anagram for LEN COLBY:

BONY CELL

"Len Colby" is a cell of Skull and Bones!

[Len Colby]

Len: I don't consider Michael's answer to me to be an insult, so no need to treat it as one. Thank you.

I agree, nor do I consider saying his comment was "nonsense" was an insult either.

Anagram for LEN COLBY:

BONY CELL

"Len Colby" is a cell of Skull and Bones!

I think you may be on to something!

[Len Colby]

Kind Readers,

Please review the following posts:

Post #53, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 9, 2008, 9:22 AM DST, east coast, USA

You’re joking right, you don’t consider “You really should stop using words you can't spell” insulting? If you don’t want someone to toss rocks at you don’t throw rocks at them first you constantly insult me and now Evan, you’ve insulted other members (Jack, David Healy, Paul) in the past. Or are going to pretend you were offended by me saying your post was ‘nonsense’? If so how is that offensive but you saying to Evan “you don't have your facts straight” not?

Post #66, “9/11 Pilot Skills” Submitted August 11, 2008, 9:08 AM DST, east coast, USA

You are conflating intransigence with reasonable doubt. This is analogous to when Jack continuously insisted that evolution was an obvious hoax though he was unable to give any reasons for this belief other than a misunderstanding of the science involved. Just as his stubborn refusal to accept the facts and some members patience in trying to set him straight in no way indicated his doubts were legitimate, you (and to a lesser extent Maggie) saying her question was not satisfactorily answered doesn’t make it so.

In your considered opinion, were they written by the same person?

Those two posts were not written by the same person---unless Len has more problems than we thought.

Perhaps I’m missing something other than raging paranoia, besides a dropped comma and pronoun I didn't notice any errors with the 1st text. I think we all write some posts more hastily than others and this leads to varying degrees of writing quality. “You might say I’m a sloppy writer but I’m not the only one”. Two examples.

In the South Ossetia thread Maggie wrote:

"As for government controlled tv. I don't actually know if the Russian government own Russia Today or not. You will some government owned and some privately owned media outlets. Is the 'truth' any more real from a private station than a government station?"

In the RFK jr-JFK/RFK thread Jan wrote:

"In your opinion are the various continations and iterations of 'mind control' programmes evidence of failure, hence try something new or demonstrative of success and newer/better evolutions?"

By the same logic how can one believe the same person who wrote the underlined parts also wrote the more articulate sentences “attributed” to “Jan” and “Maggie”. Those are just two cases that I remember offhand. I imagine if I combed over other people’s posts including Dawn’s, Mark’s and Drago’s I could find similar examples. I don’t mean this to be a criticism of Jan or Maggie, or even Dawn, Mark and Drago, I think such errors are normal.

But Dawn is right I had never used the words - you, are, with, this, is, to, when, that, was, an, he, for, a, of, the, as, his, and, some, in, him, no, were, her, was, not, it OR so - previously.

[Charles Drago]

What about this, Len?

Mark,

I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.

As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.

The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.

Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:

Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.

Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?

Charles

[Mark Stapleton]

What about this, Len?

Mark,

I'm happy to be able to number you among those who doubt that the two posts I referenced were written by the same person.

As I'm sure you appreciate, the issue here is not spelling or vocabulary or grammar or punctuation or subtext, but rather all of these elements and others, combined. Some may try to pass off the significant, telling differences between posts as inconsequential lapses of literary ability due to any number of external factors (weariness, distractions, etc.). In doing so, they are sidestepping -- intentionally or otherwise -- the deeper analysis.

The alleged "poster" of the materials I reference presents numerous similar examples of external and internal literary inconsistencies.

Permit me to make my point in a more demonstrative fasion:

Readers of this Forum have been exposed to my writing style and whatever perspectives, values, and intellectual underpinnings it reveals. Suppose a post appeared over my signature that was constructed and read as follows:

Mark you get my point and I'm glad that your with us. At least two people are responsible for the postings I gave to your atention. Im not talking about mispelling or no comas but really everything shared together and it happens ofen.

Would you sense a ... problem relating to the putative "poster's" identity?

Charles

Very good point, Charles.

The style of post, which can range from a single word or sentence to a long essay, is usually consistent, being a function of the writer's past experiences, etc. It would be very unusual for the writer to change his/her style so abruptly in under two days.

Len's 'answer' was a dismissal not a real explanation. John should take a look at this, imo.

It's the most telling point so far in the case against Len Colby.