Lifton attacks Fetzer over 9/11 and Israeli complicity

[Glenn Viklund]

Mister Fetzer,

Do you think President Kennedy might have been killed by a laser beam ?

That might explain why the Zapruder film was altered...

(All right, I'll stop trying to be funny. Couldn't help it, though.)

/F.C./

:lol: :lol:

Bang!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

David Lifton- as a published author myself, I'm curious about the situation between you and Jim regarding royalties.

Surely any dispute about money belongs in court, and is no business of this forum.

Given the amount Dr. Fetzer is claiming, the court in question is

SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

[Len Colby]

When he gets on his Shayler rant, he should tell us why he thinks Shayler is such a bad guy.

You mean other than the fact that he now wears a dress, calls himself Dolores and thinks he is Jesus?

[Josiah Thompson]

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

[Glenn Viklund]

When he gets on his Shayler rant, he should tell us why he thinks Shayler is such a bad guy.

You mean other than the fact that he now wears a dress, calls himself Dolores and thinks he is Jesus?

:lol: :lol:

Sounds like a trustworthy fella; he certainly fits the bill of being supported by Fetzer.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Sure. Ordinarily, I would agree. But when I asked Lifton to repay the loans I had extended to him, he

responded with a vicious and unwarranted attack upon me for being anti-Semitic! Go back and read

some of the first posts and it will become clear. What was I supposed to do? Allow these grotesque

smears to stand or make them an issue? If you study the situation, I think you will see who is right.

David Lifton- as a published author myself, I'm curious about the situation between you and Jim regarding royalties.

Surely any dispute about money belongs in court, and is no business of this forum.

Given the amount Dr. Fetzer is claiming, the court in question is

SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

Edited July 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. The loans, how-

ever, are his debts to me, which are separate from the royalties, which are my debts to him. I have explained

this several times now--most recently in post #300. Check it out. The situation is outlined rather clearly there.

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

Edited July 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Surely any dispute about money belongs in court, and is no business of this forum.

Given the amount Dr. Fetzer is claiming, the court in question is

SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

Sure. Ordinarily, I would agree. But when I asked Lifton to repay the loans I had extended to him, he

responded with a vicious and unwarranted attack upon me for being anti-Semitic!

You are entitled to argue that Lifton is wrong or mistaken in calling you anti-Semitic, but you appear to be simply obfuscating when you drag in whatever financial claims you have, or think you have. SMALL CLAIMS COURT is the appropriate venue for personal financial grievances, not the Ed. Forum. We are supposed to be discussing more important matters here.

[Dean Hagerman]

When he gets on his Shayler rant, he should tell us why he thinks Shayler is such a bad guy.

You mean other than the fact that he now wears a dress, calls himself Dolores and thinks he is Jesus?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

I see. So if someone launched a smear campaign against you after you asked them to replay loans you had

extended to them, you would simply let those smears stand? You should be made of sterner stuff, Mr. Carroll.

And if this thread does not interest you, there are plenty of other choices. You don't have to read this one.

Surely any dispute about money belongs in court, and is no business of this forum.

Given the amount Dr. Fetzer is claiming, the court in question is

SMALL CLAIMS COURT.

Sure. Ordinarily, I would agree. But when I asked Lifton to repay the loans I had extended to him, he

responded with a vicious and unwarranted attack upon me for being anti-Semitic!

You are entitled to argue that Lifton is wrong or mistaken in calling you anti-Semitic, but you appear to be simply obfuscating when you drag in whatever financial claims you have, or think you have. SMALL CLAIMS COURT is the appropriate venue for personal financial grievances, not the Ed. Forum. We are supposed to be discussing more important matters here.

Edited July 28, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Josiah Thompson]

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. The loans, how-

ever, are his debts to me, which are separate from the royalties, which are my debts to him. I have explained

this several times now--most recently in post #300. Check it out. The situation is outlined rather clearly there.

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

Thank you, Professor. You have said something that can be checked independently.

The copyright page of Hoax states: "This book and others from CATFEET PRESS and Open Court may be ordered by calling 1-800-815-2280." Farther down the page is states: "CATFEET PRESS and the above logo are trademarks of Carus Publishing Company." Even further down the page it states: "Catfeet Press, and imprint of Open Court, a division of Carus Publishing Company..."

If you Google "Open Court" you will be taken to the home page for Open Court Books. There you will learn that Open Court was "founded in 1887 by Paul Carus... Open Court continues to publish substantial contributions to the great public debates of our times. Carus's spirit of open debate and free inquiry remains our inspiration." [<www.opencourtbooks.com/about.htm>].

If you turn to <www.opencourtbooks.com/browse_title_new.htm> you will find a list of books published by Open Court. Hoaxcan be found on that list under "G." If you then go farther and click on <www.opencourtookscom/books_n/great_zapruder/about.htm> you will be able to buy a copy of Hoax from its publisher, Open Court Books.

As the copyright page states, "Catfeet Press" is and imprint of the publisher, Open Court. When Fetzer says, "The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments.." he is referring to Open Court. Just looking at Open Court's history and publishing list, this would seem unlikely. A reputable and well-established publishing house cannot "be years

behind in their royalty statements and payments" without being open to numerous lawsuits from their authors. Their corporate counsel wouldn't let management do this. Would anyone like to investigate this further?

JT

Edited July 28, 2010 by Josiah Thompson

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Don't get your shorts in a bunch, Tink. I explained all this to Lifton long ago and gave him the name and

phone number of the Executive Editor. I must compliment you on your research. You are getting better!

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. The loans, how-

ever, are his debts to me, which are separate from the royalties, which are my debts to him. I have explained

this several times now--most recently in post #300. Check it out. The situation is outlined rather clearly there.

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

Thank you, Professor. You have said something that can be checked independently.

The copyright page of Hoax states: "This book and others from CATFEET PRESS and Open Court may be ordered by calling 1-800-815-2280." Farther down the page is states: "CATFEET PRESS and the above logo are trademarks of Carus Publishing Company." Even further down the page it states: "Catfeet Press, and imprint of Open Court, a division of Carus Publishing Company..."

If you Google "Open Court" you will be taken to the home page for Open Court Books. There you will learn that Open Court was "founded in 1887 by Paul Carus... Open Court continues to publish substantial contributions to the great public debates of our times. Carus's spirit of open debate and free inquiry remains our inspiration." [<www.opencourtbooks.com/about.htm>].

If you turn to <www.opencourtbooks.com/browse_title_new.htm> you will find a list of books published by Open Court. Hoaxcan be found on that list under "G." If you then go farther and click on <www.opencourtookscom/books_n/great_zapruder/about.htm> you will be able to buy a copy of Hoax from its publisher, Open Court Books.

As the copyright page states, "Catfeet Press" is and imprint of the publisher, Open Court. When Fetzer says, "The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments.." he is referring to Open Court. Just looking at Open Court's history and publishing list, this would seem unlikely. A reputable and well-established publishing house cannot "be years

behind in their royalty statements and payments" without being open to numerous lawsuits from their authors. Their corporate counsel wouldn't let management do this. Would anyone like to investigate this further?

JT

[Pat Speer]

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. The loans, how-

ever, are his debts to me, which are separate from the royalties, which are my debts to him. I have explained

this several times now--most recently in post #300. Check it out. The situation is outlined rather clearly there.

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

Thank you, Professor. You have said something that can be checked independently.

The copyright page of Hoax states: "This book and others from CATFEET PRESS and Open Court may be ordered by calling 1-800-815-2280." Farther down the page is states: "CATFEET PRESS and the above logo are trademarks of Carus Publishing Company." Even further down the page it states: "Catfeet Press, and imprint of Open Court, a division of Carus Publishing Company..."

If you Google "Open Court" you will be taken to the home page for Open Court Books. There you will learn that Open Court was "founded in 1887 by Paul Carus... Open Court continues to publish substantial contributions to the great public debates of our times. Carus's spirit of open debate and free inquiry remains our inspiration." [<www.opencourtbooks.com/about.htm>].

If you turn to <www.opencourtbooks.com/browse_title_new.htm> you will find a list of books published by Open Court. Hoaxcan be found on that list under "G." If you then go farther and click on <www.opencourtookscom/books_n/great_zapruder/about.htm> you will be able to buy a copy of Hoax from its publisher, Open Court Books.

As the copyright page states, "Catfeet Press" is and imprint of the publisher, Open Court. When Fetzer says, "The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments.." he is referring to Open Court. Just looking at Open Court's history and publishing list, this would seem unlikely. Would anyone like to investigate this further?

JT

It could be the oldest game in the book. (I'm NOT saying that it is.) Set up a wholly-owned subsidiary as a separate entity, transfer the assets to the parent company, and then leave the subsidiary destitute, and unable to pay what it owes to its artists. If anyone sues, the subsidiary claims bankruptcy, and the artists feel lucky to get the rights back to their creation, and have to kiss off any payment for goods sold. Sometimes, in fact, another company buys up the inventory for which the artist is still owed payment, and is able to sell it as a "cut-out", for which no royalties are issued. It's all a big game. Screw the artist 101.

In the record industry, the parent company would quite often book the advertisements, and "advise" the subsidiary. Sometimes, as well, the executives of the parent company get paid in part by the subsidiary for "services provided" such as bookkeeping, etc. Bills for these services always get paid, sometimes overpaid, so that the parent company is kept as healthy as possible and the subsidiary is kept as vulnerable as possible.

Such subsidiaries are often incorporated in Nevada.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Except that this is a perfectly reputable company with a long history of publication in philosophy, which

even includes The Library of Living Philosophers. Why don't you find something constructive to do with

your copious free time, Pat? Blowing smoke out your ass is really unbecoming of someone who wants

to be taken seriously. I don't participate in con jobs. You must be spending too much time with Tink!

The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments. I wish

it were not the case, but when I have had statements from them, I have paid Lifton his due. The loans, how-

ever, are his debts to me, which are separate from the royalties, which are my debts to him. I have explained

this several times now--most recently in post #300. Check it out. The situation is outlined rather clearly there.

I have extended you so many benefits, including loans that I had no obligation to provide, that it never crossed my mind that you would want to have copies of the royalty statements. Well, I have requested them and I have told you that I am going to send them when I have them. You, however, have not even affirmed that if, when the dust settles, it turns out I have overpaid you, you will reimburse me. The debts you owe me for these loans are not in the same category with the debts I owe you because of our contract. You are engaging in sleazy business practices. No accountant would endorse mixing them.

For years, Professor Fetzer, you kept track of the number ranking of your various books on Amazon. You really want us to believe that you never kept track of how many copies of Hoax had sold? Like everyone else, you get yearly royalty statements and you use those statements to fill out the "Rent and Royalty" section of your Form 1040. It's rather important to do this since the publisher sends the same royalty statements to the IRS for matching. Hence, you were legally required to know year by year what royalties you received for Hoax. You also knew that if you didn't comply,the IRS would have been on your tail in a New York minute. You want everyone to believe that this never happened, that you never received yearly royalty statements and never worried about getting nailed by the IRS?

Jim DiEugenio said he had read both your and Lifton's posts on all this and it was clear to him that someone was lying. Guess who that "someone" is?

JT

Thank you, Professor. You have said something that can be checked independently.

The copyright page of Hoax states: "This book and others from CATFEET PRESS and Open Court may be ordered by calling 1-800-815-2280." Farther down the page is states: "CATFEET PRESS and the above logo are trademarks of Carus Publishing Company." Even further down the page it states: "Catfeet Press, and imprint of Open Court, a division of Carus Publishing Company..."

If you Google "Open Court" you will be taken to the home page for Open Court Books. There you will learn that Open Court was "founded in 1887 by Paul Carus... Open Court continues to publish substantial contributions to the great public debates of our times. Carus's spirit of open debate and free inquiry remains our inspiration." [<www.opencourtbooks.com/about.htm>].

If you turn to <www.opencourtbooks.com/browse_title_new.htm> you will find a list of books published by Open Court. Hoaxcan be found on that list under "G." If you then go farther and click on <www.opencourtookscom/books_n/great_zapruder/about.htm> you will be able to buy a copy of Hoax from its publisher, Open Court Books.

As the copyright page states, "Catfeet Press" is and imprint of the publisher, Open Court. When Fetzer says, "The publisher has fallen on hard times and is years behind in their royalty statements and payments.." he is referring to Open Court. Just looking at Open Court's history and publishing list, this would seem unlikely. Would anyone like to investigate this further?

JT

It could be the oldest game in the book. (I'm NOT saying that it is.) Set up a wholly-owned subsidiary as a separate entity, transfer the assets to the parent company, and then leave the subsidiary destitute, and unable to pay what it owes to its artists. If anyone sues, the subsidiary claims bankruptcy, and the artists feel lucky to get the rights back to their creation, and have to kiss off any payment for goods sold. Sometimes, in fact, another company buys up the inventory for which the artist is still owed payment, and is able to sell it as a "cut-out", for which no royalties are issued. It's all a big game. Screw the artist 101.

In the record industry, the parent company would quite often book the advertisements, and "advise" the subsidiary. Sometimes, as well, the executives of the parent company get paid in part by the subsidiary for "services provided" such as bookkeeping, etc. Bills for these services always get paid, sometimes overpaid, so that the parent company is kept as healthy as possible and the subsidiary is kept as vulnerable as possible.

Such subsidiaries are often incorporated in Nevada.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I see. So if someone launched a smear campaign against you after you asked them to replay loans you had

extended to them, you would simply let those smears stand?

The alleged SMEARS and the alleged LOANS are horses of two different ballgames (Here I Bow to the Marx Brothers).

This forum is not a DEBT COLLECTION service and -- as a longtime member -- I resent your attempts to pervert it into such. (This statement is by no means intended to prejudice David Lifton's position in this nickel-and- dime argument, namely David's evidence that he does not owe you one thin dime)!

You should be made of sterner stuff, Mr. Carroll.

Don't worry, Dr. Fetzer, I was born lucky, not rich, but I was a tough rugby player in my day, AND I still have my rugby waistline; Can we say the same about you?

And if this thread does not interest you, there are plenty of other choices. You don't have to read this one.

Thank you , Dr. Fetzer, old sport. That may be your MOST PRODUCTIVE suggestion -- TO ANYONE-- since you joined the forum.