Jump to content

The Case of Len Colby


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

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

Edited by Kathy Beckett
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 148
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Evan Burton
Removed offensive passage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I<Removed>

Both are criminal.

BK

Forget it, Bill. This guy gets to refer to Forum posters as being mentally ill, criminals, etc. without so much as a caution from moderators.

Frankly, I have no problem with his behavior. It is rhapsodically self-damning.

Distasteful? Perhaps. But hey, I'm with George Carlin and Lenny Bruce on these issues.

Take care,

Charles

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Removed by Mod>

It took a while but the penny dropped.

<Removed>

But it's actually the most powerful painkiller known to science, with a very low cost base, is currently used in British hospitals (under the name diamorphine), and it has relatively few harmful side effects except of course, the addiction. Unfortunately, if it were to be made legally available then a lot of prescription drugs would become redundant and because the patent expired long ago, it could be manufactured generically and cheaply---all of which is too much for Big Pharma and its shareholders to bear.

Drug of the devil my ass.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Thank you Bill for your support but I have no problem with Craig's post.

Thanks again.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insinuating that Mark does heroin is like calling someone a pedophile.

Both are criminal.

BK

Forget it, Bill. This guy gets to refer to Forum posters as being mentally ill, criminals, etc. without so much as a caution from moderators.

Frankly, I have no problem with his behavior. It is rhapsodically self-damning.

Distasteful? Perhaps. But hey, I'm with George Carlin and Lenny Bruce on these issues.

Take care,

Charles

Tisk Tish charley, making things up out of thin air brings you dangerously close to that banned "L" word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

I've been following this thread since it's inception and would now like to chime in with my two cents. I don't want to say that I am totally convinced of the assertions against "Colby", but I have had the same suspicions about a debunker poster on another forum related to the JFK assassination. This poster would respond to any post critical of the lone gunman fiction literally within a few minutes with long, detailed responses. I started to wonder if this "poster" was not actually several people using the same internet persona. "He" would make these long and elaborate posts at all hours of the day and night. As to the reason for creating a fictional internet forum persona, employing the input of several people, it would be to create the impression in lurkers minds that this "poster" is at the top of the game and that he has all the facts at his fingertips and can cite them within moments. This will lead many to marvel at his research skills and seemingly wide range of knowledge. I am not saying that I am completely convinced that this is the case with "Colby", but I wouldn't be shocked if it were.

A few years ago Monsanto got caught hiring a public relations firm (Bivings Group) to insert posters posing as ordinary citizens into internet forums where Monsanto was being discussed in a negative light. The purpose was to counter criticism of the company. Unwary forum members thought they were just conversing with disinterested parties, not knowing that they were planted there by a public relations firm. That these kinds of things do happen is my point.

Edited by Brian Smith
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Removed>

Well good for you.

In any case we must take your posts with a huge grain of salt. After all how do we know that you are who you say you are? For all we know you are some super secret double agent( or maybe even part of a...team) sent to post things designed to make CT's look quite awful. Thats the clear impression I get from your posts.

Whats your real name again? Just WHO do you work for?

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Removed>

Well good for you.

In any case we must take your posts with a huge grain of salt. After all how do we know that you are who you say you are? For all we know you are some super secret double agent( or maybe even part of a...team) sent to post things designed to make CT's look quite awful. Thats the clear impression I get from your posts.

Whats your real name again? Just WHO do you work for?

Lam-pooning is not your strong point.

(Lamb pooning ... well, I wouldn't presume to guess, sweetie.)

When you develop one, please share it with your otherwise adoring public.

I herein grant you full permission to accuse me of lying.

But you'd best be able to prove it.

Sweetie.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Removed>

Well good for you.

In any case we must take your posts with a huge grain of salt. After all how do we know that you are who you say you are? For all we know you are some super secret double agent( or maybe even part of a...team) sent to post things designed to make CT's look quite awful. Thats the clear impression I get from your posts.

Whats your real name again? Just WHO do you work for?

Lam-pooning is not your strong point.

When you get one, please share it with your otherwise adoring public, sweetie.

I herein grant you full permission to accuse me of lying.

But you'd best be able to prove it.

Sweetie.

Lam-basting does seem to be his specialty, hes efficient at it and is making short work of many here. Whats with the sweetie thing? Bit O sugar in the tank?

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've made no insinuation. I asked a simple question. Mark has gone on AT LENGTH about the subect of Heroin ON THIS FORUM. Clearly Mark has a great interest in the subject of Heroin. Its a very fair question, in light of the continued questions about Len Colby by Mark and his ilk.

Yes, I do have an interest the this subject, Craig. In fact the broader issue of prohibition is a pet issue of mine because of the damage it causes in society. Post anything I've previously said---we're here to inform.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"<Removed>

Well good for you.

In any case we must take your posts with a huge grain of salt. After all how do we know that you are who you say you are? For all we know you are some super secret double agent( or maybe even part of a...team) sent to post things designed to make CT's look quite awful. Thats the clear impression I get from your posts.

Whats your real name again? Just WHO do you work for?

:):lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

p.s. :lol::lol::lol:

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have strong opnions about that subject. The war on drugs is a self perpetuating enterprise and there is a hell of a lot of information to support that. The approach of the criminal justice system to illegal narcotics just hasn't worked and costs us a huge amount in taxes.

That being said, the accusation of illegal use isn't even relevant, besides being insulting.

Edited by Evan Burton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...