The Case of Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

Good question - what is truth, and why is one standard (yet to be defined) applied to one member only?

Jan's bio said he worked for the BBC (IIRC) but I've never seen his work. Should we demand a showing? If so, what point does it serve? Does it verify a point Jan makes?

What about Jack White? What if I claim that he is a conglomerate? Just because I have doubts is it fair that he have to prove his identity to everyone?

[Charles Drago]

Kathy,

I am obliged to preface my remarks by noting for all interested parties that you and I recently exchanged cordial, mutually respectful PMs. What follows is offered in just the same spirit.

To date, there have been 3 (count 'em, 3) threads begun about Len Colby. From what I have read, I believe this is why:

He is largely in disagreement with conspiracy theories or certain aspects of them. This is problematic for several members because he is a prolific writer and may have influence over others with what he says.

This may have a negative impact on some because they feel that he is oppressing "truth" and must be exposed or stopped.

Respectfully: NONSENSE!

Honest (though by definition, under/misinformed) individuals who refuse to accept the truth of certain conspiracies (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc.) must be treated collegially and honorably. It is icumbent upon those of us who know the truth to prosilytize them with that truth.

"Colby" is not "one" of the people I reference at the beginning of the preceding sentence. So all bets are off. "He" is to be treated as what a barrister might term a "hostile witness."

It is difficult for me to find a comparison of the activity on this thread with a model that, IMO, this type of behavior mimics.

With a bit of a stretch, I think this one will do:

'The basic concept behind the establishment of the pecking order among, for example, chickens, is that it is necessary to determine who is the 'top chicken,' the 'bottom chicken' and where all the rest fit in between. Consequently, this also determines which chicken gets to eat first or which chicken gets to peck on any other chickens they want. The top chicken is one which can peck any chicken it wants. The bottom chicken is one that lets all the other chickens peck on it and stands up to none. There are chickens in the middle, who peck on certain chickens but are, in turn, pecked on by other chickens higher up on the scale."

Forgive me, Kathy, but if my skin were just a tad thinner I would take immense offense at so ignorant and condescending a statement.

If what is colloquially referred to as a "pissing contest" is the most sophisticated interpretation you can conjure for what is going on in my exposure of "Colby," then I simply cannot discern a reasonable basis for further discussion with you on this matter.

I'd have better luck with one of your chickens.

It may be that the whole rests on the definition of truth. And I have to ask--whose truth? It is a relative truth or an absolute truth? Or both?

In terms of my description of "Colby," the answer is "absolute truth."

Charles

[Charles Drago]

Has anyone seen this?? Or does anyone remember it?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=115894

(Post #2, in case link doesn't take you to it. )

This was penned by Len himself:

I've said repeatedly I think there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of JFK I did dispute stupid theories that the Z-film had been altered.

Kathy,

Avail yourself of an education in the arts of disinformation and propaganda, then get back to me.

For starters, look elsewhere on this thread for my "fearless prediction" that "Colby" would again be ordered to make just such a declaration of enlightened sensibilities in order to confuse (forgive me) the more gullible readers of this Forum.

It's all about building and supporting a legend.

Look it up.

Charles

[Matthew Lewis]

For starters, look elsewhere on this thread for my "fearless prediction" that "Colby" would again be ordered to make just such a declaration of enlightened sensibilities in order to confuse (forgive me) the more gullible readers of this Forum.

It's all about building and supporting a legend.

Look it up.

Charles

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed.

[Craig Lamson]

drago spewed" ....who can stand as the living, human refutation to the best of "his" enemy's champions has no value whatsoever, right?" (bolding mine)

When can we expect to see these "best" champions? If what has been put forth is the "best" that can be offered, you are in a world of hurt.

Edited August 15, 2008 by Craig Lamson

[Charles Drago]

Good question - what is truth, and why is one standard (yet to be defined) applied to one member only?

Jan's bio said he worked for the BBC (IIRC) but I've never seen his work. Should we demand a showing? If so, what point does it serve? Does it verify a point Jan makes?

What about Jack White? What if I claim that he is a conglomerate? Just because I have doubts is it fair that he have to prove his identity to everyone?

Evan,

You just won't quit, will you?

There are no good reasons to question the identities of Brothers Klimkowski and White.

There are innumerable good reasons to question the "identity" and missions of "Colby." And I've cited them. Over and over again.

Let's put it another way: According to law deriving from the Magna Carta, a traffic cop cannot pull over a vehicle absent reasonable cause (a broken tail light, a bloody limb hanging out a window, etc.).

I have cited the "reasonable cause" upon which I base my exposure of "Colby."

Cite equally reasonable cause for charging Jan and/or Jack with being fictive constructs, and then have at it.

If not, stop with the straw men nonsense. You're embarassing yourself.

Charles

[Charles Drago]

For starters, look elsewhere on this thread for my "fearless prediction" that "Colby" would again be ordered to make just such a declaration of enlightened sensibilities in order to confuse (forgive me) the more gullible readers of this Forum.

It's all about building and supporting a legend.

Look it up.

Charles

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed.

Then we are in agreement as to "Colby's" motives behind such absurd protestations.

There's hope for you yet!

[Charles Drago]

drago spewed" ....who can stand as the living, human refutation to the best of "his" enemy's champions has no value whatsoever, right?" (bolding mine)

When can we expect to see these "best" champions? If what has been put forth is the "best" that can be offered, you are in a world of hurt.

Oooooooooh ... SOUND!

("Sound" -- or "insult," in American schoolyard parlance.)

Edited August 15, 2008 by Charles Drago

[Mark Stapleton]

Comparisons to McCarthy came to mind.

Indeed they do -- to Charlie McCarthy. Another famous puppet from American vaudeville and early television.

Not having any qualifications in the subject nor being able to cite anyone who does has not stopped him from spouting his rubbish ad nauseam.

These guys just can't stop talking about themselves.

In cricketing parlance--unplayable.

[Matthew Lewis]

For starters, look elsewhere on this thread for my "fearless prediction" that "Colby" would again be ordered to make just such a declaration of enlightened sensibilities in order to confuse (forgive me) the more gullible readers of this Forum.

It's all about building and supporting a legend.

Look it up.

Charles

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed.

Then we are in agreement as to "Colby's" motives behind such absurd protestations.

There's hope for you yet!

Apparently you do not understand sarcasm (note the emoticon rolling its eyes). For "predicting" something that came to pass nearly a year before the prediction I put you in the same class as so called "psychics", palm readers, and astrologists. None of which I think has any merit.

[Charles Drago]

For starters, look elsewhere on this thread for my "fearless prediction" that "Colby" would again be ordered to make just such a declaration of enlightened sensibilities in order to confuse (forgive me) the more gullible readers of this Forum.

It's all about building and supporting a legend.

Look it up.

Charles

Wow. You predicted something that happened nearly a year ago. Color me impressed.

Then we are in agreement as to "Colby's" motives behind such absurd protestations.

There's hope for you yet!

Apparently you do not understand sarcasm (note the emoticon rolling its eyes). For "predicting" something that came to pass nearly a year before the prediction I put you in the same class as so called "psychics", palm readers, and astrologists. None of which I think has any merit.

My prediction of future action by "Colby" and his masters was prompted by the post you've referenced -- among other, similar outbursts of simple-minded disinformation.

Have you been inhaling chemtrails again?

My teeth are starting to hurt

[Mark Stapleton]

While I think Dave Greer and Peter McKenna made good points in their posts, I think Charles post #14 proves (to me, at least) that at least two people have posted under Len's banner.

I don't even know if this is against the rules but it does prove a point. That is, the Len Colby avatar is now suspect. I won't reply to it again until Len explains his rapid transformation from borderline incoherence to polished erudition.

Those critical of Charles for stating his case should remember this thread was started by John Simkin--in response to previous claims made about Len.

Those who regard this as a distasteful inquisition should remember that Len has made some distasteful and unjustified accusations about others in the past---when it suits him. There's no halo over Len and he seems to revel in all this--another concern, imo, as I know I wouldn't be comfortable to be under such close scrutiny, but as Charles correctly points out, Len has warranted this suspicion by his own actions over a long period.

The biggest problem is that Len has directly or indirectly caused some members to leave. Jan Klimkowski and David Guyatt have a lot to contribute to the political conspiracies debate and they wouldn't make the decision to leave lightly, imo. Frankly, I respect their opinions and research more than Len Colby's.

p.s. can someone throw Craig Lamson a side of raw meat or something?

[Guest Gary Loughran]

To date, there have been 3 (count 'em, 3) threads begun about Len Colby. From what I have read, I believe this is why:

He is largely in disagreement with conspiracy theories or certain aspects of them. This is problematic for several members because he is a prolific writer and may have influence over others with what he says.

This may have a negative impact on some because they feel that he is oppressing "truth" and must be exposed or stopped.

Being in disagreement with conspiracy theories etc. is, in and of itself, not problematic for many, if not all, members. I would suggest it is the semantic battles which take the place of reasoned debate. The unnecessary compulsion to make others dot i's, cross t's and jump through a singular, peer reviewed hoop, before acceptance of a piece of data - usually not particularly relevant to the core sentiment of the original post, anyway.

Of course that is my sideways look at the problems - for which there will be no citations forthcoming.

In far too many topics reasonable speculation is necessary - certain Government reports throughout the years have undoubtedly created their own facts and removed all traces of actual truths. Therefore anything presented to contradict this view of events is naturally and to varying degrees speculative.

Len's signature has a statement from some senator or other, that he believes "[our] government was partly at fault by engaging in polices that inspired it," with respect to 911. Now if this signature posts reflects Len's opinion, which it does - compare and contrast with his (to paraphrase) Russia started the Georgian conflict, view. This is precisely the duplicitous policy that both inspired attacks on both 911 and Len

[Guest Gary Loughran]

Len didn't cause anyone to leave. It was their choice, not his.

Is that related to my last post???

I never had any consideration for anyone leaving when making my post. It was purely a personal take on the whole situation. As for the specifics of why people left, from what I know, they didn't choose to leave, in a vacuum. (I'm leaving that last bit it made me smile on at least 2 levels)

[William Kelly]

While I think Dave Greer and Peter McKenna made good points in their posts, I think Charles post #14 proves (to me, at least) that at least two people have posted under Len's banner.

I don't even know if this is against the rules but it does prove a point. That is, the Len Colby avatar is now suspect. I won't reply to it again until Len explains his rapid transformation from borderline incoherence to polished erudition.

Those critical of Charles for stating his case should remember this thread was started by John Simkin--in response to previous claims made about Len.

Those who regard this as a distasteful inquisition should remember that Len has made some distasteful and unjustified accusations about others in the past---when it suits him. There's no halo over Len and he seems to revel in all this--another concern, imo, as I know I wouldn't be comfortable to be under such close scrutiny, but as Charles correctly points out, Len has warranted this suspicion by his own actions over a long period.

The biggest problem is that Len has directly or indirectly caused some members to leave. Jan Klimkowski and David Guyatt have a lot to contribute to the political conspiracies debate and they wouldn't make the decision to leave lightly, imo. Frankly, I respect their opinions and research more than Len Colby's.

p.s. can someone throw Craig Lamson a side of raw meat or something?

<removed by Mod>

I'd like to complain about this post.

I too, like Mark, miss Jan and David and think their contrabutions are needed.

Nor do I think setting up a mirror forum where those with like minds can meddle among themselves without Colbies.

<Removed>

Both are criminal.

BK

Edited August 16, 2008 by Evan Burton
Removed offensive passage