FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Audio: CIA Blinks! (Jim Fetzer Show)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 24, 25, 26  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Toe Jam



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:34 pm    Post subject: Re: Posting on Behalf of TJ Reply with quote

navari wrote:
TJ, why are you here? Why do you find it so important to converse with
an insignificant group of 500 sheeple on some distant forum?

Navari, you don't understand, do you?
I can see why someone would want to work on the inside and
try to change things from within. Being a gladiator isn't easy,
fighting the corporate lions is an act of courage.

You have to believe in politics or it doesn't work.
Ultimately we have to make the political system work for us,
it may be flawed but it's the best we got.

_________________
'cause I am great and you're not


Last edited by Toe Jam on Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 6:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Posting on Behalf of TJ Reply with quote

Toe Jam wrote:

...
You have to believe in politics or it doesn't work.
Ultimately we have to make the political system work for us,
it may be flawed but it's the best we got.


Heh, my political system has nothing to do with yours Wink You can only enforce your will upon me with the use of violence, which reveals the nature of your "politics".

One of the best ways to talk about politics, I've found, is to ask people how they account for *their* government. Since I don't recognize Bush as legitimately elected and therefore consider him to be holding office illegitimately, his actions must belong to those who support him. It's interesting to watch people who "always vote Democratic" stop and ponder how to respond...because clearly they can't "support Bush" but also, clearly, they support the political process which produced the current set of symptoms from which we all suffer.

I think Leary was right when he said

Quote:
Turn On, Tune In, Drop Out


The best way to hammer the existing system is to simply step outside it and create a different system. It sounds so difficult but it's like never keeping any real "money" in a bank: it makes the "bank" so much less important to the process of "money".
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Toe Jam



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 10

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

heiho1 wrote:
Heh, my political system has nothing to do with yours Wink You can only enforce your will upon me with the use of violence, which reveals the nature of your "politics".

The political system is the only legitimate tool with which to affect change.

To look outside of mainstream politics is childish at best, and ungrateful at worst, to all those who have striven so hard, and affected so much fundamental change in the name of justice, equality and reduced the poverty gap. Sure, we still have some distance to travel, but we're really making progress, the democratic political system is a powerful tool for the 'little guy,' when we vote we exert real power.

_________________
'cause I am great and you're not


Last edited by Toe Jam on Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
devabarry



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 132
Location: Zionosphere

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toe Jam wrote:
heiho1 wrote:
Heh, my political system has nothing to do with yours Wink You can only enforce your will upon me with the use of violence, which reveals the nature of your "politics".

The political system is the only legitimate tool with which to affect change.

To look outside of mainstream politics is childish at best, and ungrateful at worst, to all those who have striven so hard, and affected so much fundamental change in the name of justice, equality and reduced the poverty gap. Sure, we still have some distance to travel, but we're really making progress, the democratic political system is a powerful tool for the 'little guy', when we vote we exert real power.


Toe, is that a 'W' trying to hide behind that wee little shrub?...C'mon now, don't beat around the bush...we BFNers like our dirt out in the open, not underfoot. So don't try to plant one on us, okay? I mean really,
Quote:
fundamental change in the name of justice, equality and reduced the poverty gap
toes the party line just a bit too far for us simple folk... Twisted Evil
_________________
"There are two kinds of secrets: those we keep from others, and those we keep from ourselves." -Frank Warren
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
truthseeker



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 177
Location: NW U.S.

PostPosted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Toe Jam wrote:
To look outside of mainstream politics is childish at best, and ungrateful at worst, to all those who have striven so hard, and affected so much fundamental change in the name of justice, equality and reduced the poverty gap. Sure, we still have some distance to travel, but we're really making progress, the democratic political system is a powerful tool for the 'little guy', when we vote we exert real power.[/size]


Gasp! Choke! Arrrrrgh!

You spent whatever credibility you might have had, heretofore, with that bit of embicility... :roll:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jirons



Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 172

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert_g said
Quote:
I want to hear more about the how the DECENTRALIZED MONEY would work. Maybe on a new thread linked off of this one.


Hi d_g. I'd suggest you have a look a social credit; I should also as I'm no expert.

Briefly, this was an idea with a lot of traction at some point in C20th. I believe it was actually voted into law in part of Canada and then (surprise, surprise), NOT ALLOWED.

I think the basic idea is that every person is born into a huge pool of bequeathed, communally earned wealth and has by right a share. Contrast this with the present system where we are born into debt and many if not most of us spend our lives running hard to put a roof over our heads.

I believe there is a strand of Green Party thought that has adopted these ideas as policy.

I suggest doing a scroogle on Frances Hutchinson, who seemingly has spent a large part of her life pushing these ideas. I may now take up this advice myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CB_Brooklyn



Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:47 pm    Post subject: WE are the technocrats of Revolution Next. Now, what’s next? Reply with quote

Source: http://www.911researchers.com/node/339#comment-2655

Posting on Behalf of Thomas J Mattingly



WE are the technocrats of Revolution Next. Now, what’s next?
Submitted by TJ on Wed, 2007-03-28 17:43.

Following is my reply to reply comments at http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=18251#18251, where I'm still banned and where CB_Brooklyn posted my first reply comment. Would someone please post the following reply comment in the Fintan Forum? Thanx. --TJ.

---------------------


Hi, Navari & Truthseeker:

Let’s start with the provable assumption that Fintan is not as dumb as I sometimes look. Many conclusions follow from that premise, but I don’t want to appear to be too smart.

Navari, you ask: “TJ, are you trying to claim that you are a Robin Hood?”

No. But maybe I’m Friar Tuck – and Mister Magoo, Walter Mitty, Austin Powers, and Forrest Gump – all loosely wrapped into one. In an insane world, only the crazy people CAN be sane. However, just being crazy is no guarantee of one’s sanity. Believe me. I know. The truth is that I don’t know who I am. Sometimes, I’m afraid to stop long enough to ask. If you have the answer, then please let me know.

Navari, you ask: "Seems that you've been hanging around other wolves for quite some time and dining off sheeple like us. Are we now to believe that you've switched sides, or that you are some kinda double agent? I don't buy that you've had some kinda change of heart. But I'm open minded, so convince me otherwise. However, I don't see how one can be on both sides at once. I tried it, and I can't see how it works."

I’m still the same person that I’ve always been (unless I’m also guilty of cereal reincarnation in the same body – it’s all that damned wheat!). No, I haven’t switched sides. But, in the reality in which I live, there is only one side: OURS. Thinking that there is more than one side is just part of the game. Enlarging the game to include all sides on “one side” sometimes enables me to convince the supposed “other side” to take action in our mutual best interest. Sometimes, they do. Sometimes, they don’t.

Navari, you say: “TJ, why are you here? Why do you find it so important to converse with an insignificant group of 500 sheeple on some distant forum?

"Forgive my terse responses in this thread, but it is my strong opinion that you are very skilled at replying with statements that will show you in a positive light. I've seen this skill first hand, and have been very close to it for a long long time. But I think it is important for you to respond and to allow others to freely make up their own mind.”

The best “compliment” that I have ever received was from someone from “the other side,” who asked me: “Why are you still alive?” It took all that I had to stop from ROTFLMAO. I had just finished briefing him on how the supposed U.S. “screw-ups” in Iraq were all by design (not by negligence or by incompetence – his position).

Why do you think that the 500 others & you in this Forum are “insignificant”? “How many technocrats does it take to change a paradigm?”, Matt asks. What’s the answer? I didn’t start this conversation in this Forum. Fintan did. Ask him.

You say: “What one pays attention to is what one is conscious of.”

Yes. And if we combine “attention” with “intention,” WE shift paradigms. We’re doing this now.

Truthseeker says: “Thank you, Navari, for your very direct questioning (and even tone of voice). I confess to having been slow on this one, but believe I have a bit more understanding of Fintan's choice than I had at the time."

Let’s CONTINUE with the provable assumption that Fintan is not as dumb as I sometimes look. Many conclusions follow from that premise, but I don’t want to appear to be too smart.

Navari, you say & ask: “To bring this back to the title of this thread, I have what could be considered a dumb question. But given that Fetzer claims to be a man of science (my words, not his), can anyone tell me if Fetzer has ever called for a peer review process as part of his investigation into 9/11 (sorry, but I don't follow Fetzer)? …

“Jim, if you are still following this thread, I'd certainly appreciate your input. T.J., if you are still around, then perhaps you can tap Fetzer on the shoulder and see if he'd care to honor us with a brief answer.”

I don’t speak for Fetzer, and he doesn’t speak for me. In addition, please notice that I’ve never been on any of Fetzer’s advisory boards. However, I will suggest to him that he ALSO answer your question in this Forum. For now, you’re stuck with me.

Of course, Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds & others know that they need “peer review.” But where? I have suggested to Fetzer that he encourage his Scholars for 9/11 Truth to join the “Break For News 9/11 3i Forum.” Fetzer has not (yet?) acted on my suggestion (except by his inaction).

Dr. Judy Wood has presented her 9/11 “Billiard Balls Example” at a credible engineering conference. She received rave reviews for & acceptance of her assertions. See http://www.DrJudyWood.com.

Fetzer says that he plans to start a peer-reviewed 9/11 journal to supplement, complement & compete with the “Journal of 9/11 Studies” that Dr. Steve Jones edits. Fetzer & ST911 have not yet done so. If you have other “peer reviewed” journals in which you suggest publishing their articles, then please make your suggestions here and directly to Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds & others. (BTW, I don't agree with all that they assert & say.) If no appropriate journals exist, then start one. Given your background, you can do this.

WE are the technocrats of Revolution Next. Now, what’s next?

"Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think." -- Niels Bohr
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CB_Brooklyn



Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:49 pm    Post subject: "Peer Review" in 9/11 research Reply with quote

source: http://www.911researchers.com/node/339#comment-2665



"Peer Review" in 9/11 research
Submitted by Jim Fetzer on Wed, 2007-03-28 20:40.

Peer review is the common practice for publication in the humanities and the social sciences as well as the natural sciences, so it is misleading if not simply confused to suggest that the key characteristic of natural science is "peer review". (Replication is closer to the heart of the matter; peer review works only when the referees are competent and objective.) It is especially duplicitous to suggest that a group of your buddies is an appropriate group to conduct "peer review". From the beginning, I told Steve that he needed to "beef up" the editorial board for THE JOURNAL OF 9/11 STUDIES, which, so far as I have been able to discern, he has not really done. When I learned that he had used Carl Weis, a retired professor of art, as a referee for a paper on planes/no planes at the WTC by Morgan Reynolds and Rick Rajter, it told me that he was not enforcing professional standards for peer review. (I like Carl a great deal; he was just not an appropriate choice for this assignment.) I have had extensive experience with journals and publication, having served as the co-editor of SYNTHESE for ten years and having founded and (solely) edited MINDS AND MACHINES for another ten, as well as serving on many editorial boards. I have invited Judy Wood and Morgan Reyonds to co-edit a new journal for Scholars and I predict that, when this comes to pass--which I hope will be in the near future rather than the distant--it will have an excellent editorial board. That is my expectation. If that does not come to pass, they and I will deserve criticism.

As for what THE JOURNAL OF 9/11 STUDIES has done, it is a very mixed bag. Some of the articles published there have been admirable, including, for example, "Seismic Proof - 9/11 Was An Inside Job" (Updated Version III) by Craig T. Furlong and Gordon Ross, the first version of which is posted on Scholars; "What is 9/11 Truth? - The First Steps" by Kevin Ryan, which I considered including in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY; and "Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11" by Joseph P. Firmage, which I did include. On the other hand, the editors have recently published--not just as a "Letter" but as an article in the journal--"The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center" by Gregory S. Jenkins, which I consider to be atrocious. Jenkins not only edits a sentence of mine in order to reverse its meaning as his paper's motto, but trades upon his own act of deceit by making it the subject of his first sentence, suggesting that I am criticizing Judy Wood when I was actually criticizing him for abusing her! My exchange with the editors about this matter was published here, so I do not have to emphasize the disgraceful conduct of the editors in not setting the record straight and allowing this absurdity to stand! This is completely reprehensible conduct!

I am therefore dismayed by the lack of scruples displayed by its editors. In fact, Steve Jones has been stretching the truth about the journal and related matters almost from scratch. He describes Kevin Ryan and himself as the "founding editors", but that is historically false. Judy Wood and he were the original co-editors, while I was the original managing editor. Judy resigned when she realized that her co-editor was not going to enforce appropriate standards of quality and I was eased out because he did not want me there, probably because I had vastly more editorial experience than the did and was not going to tolerate nonsense, either. In any case, I am very disappointed in the journal and its editors. By allowing Jenkins to distort the meaning of my sentence EVEN AFTER IT HAD BEEN DRAWN TO THEIR ATTENTION, the editors have demonstrated that they are not dedicated to scholarship or to maintaining the integrity of their journal. I have been forced to conclude that, if academic standards were rigorously enforced, they would not be allowed to serve in their capacity and some of their articles would never have been published. They have personalized what should have been a scientific and objective journal, especially in their "Letters", which they are using as a "hit" section. Vendettas, alas, are not science!

Moreover, Jones has dismayed me in more ways than one. He has made much of the idea that there are writting critiques of some of the efforts of Judy and Morgan, notwithstanding that their research is ongoing and that they have not committed themselves to specific hypotheses about how all of this was done. (In my opinion, their work in clarifying what needs to be explained has been exemplary and far transcends even the lauded work of their foremost critic!) What is most striking about all this, however, is that they (Judy and Morgan) had published critiques of Steve' efforts in two papers of their own, "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis" of 14 December 2006 and "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Disintegrate? A peer review of Steven E. Jones' 9/11 Research", both of which are archived on Judy's site at drjudywood.com. These are powerful studies that take apart the pretense that Steve has made major contributions to research on 9/11. Since he has made so much of their non-response to attacks upon them in the new "Letters" section of the journal, even though they are, by and large, attacking positions that Judy and Morgan do not hold, I find it astonishing that he would persist in this form of criticism when he himself has never responded to their vastly more damaging critiques, which are based upon positions that he does hold. I have been forced to conclude either that Steve cannot reply because he is incompetent or that he does not want to reply because it would expose the inadequacy of his research. In either case, I no longer believe in Steve Jones or his journal, which is too bad but well-earned. 9/11 research deserves better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maverick



Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 271

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am wating for Fetzer to come on here and answer some of the questions being brought up...........

Why would you get involved with someone who comes across as a crackpot (Judy W) if you want to maintain any credibility at all...........

Simple Question
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Hocus Locus



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 850
Location: Lost in anamnesis, cannot forget my way out

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DrewTerry wrote:
If people are afraid to speak the truth then everyone will continue to believe the lies. To me, being 'careful what you say' is tantamount to co-conspiratorial complicity with the PTB that we know are behind the bullshit 'terrorist' regime. Fuck that bullshit.

"I would rather die standing than on my knees."

And I also. Sounds like hearing someone being told be careful what you say unnerves you, like I am unnerved when greeted by someone who feels it necessary to add, it takes all kinds to make a world. When one says that one is obviously referring to one of a different kind. It begs clarification, but the other shoe never drops. We all have sore spots.

But I was just being sardonic, if chilling free speech was my intent I wouldn't have said that -- I'd have taken action, obliterated Wu Li's words by spreading 'white-out' on the screen. Before your very eyes!

With the wonder-products of the modern office... who needs space beams?

But some manage to shout through the white-out.

TJ wrote:
A good question to ask yourself may be: "How many and which of our 9/11 'truths' are based on our acceptance or rejection of 'Ad Hominem' or personal attacks?"

Not one. Or actually, just one. In Langewiesche's installments in Atlantic Monthly and his book American Ground, members of Ladder Company 4 were posthumously defamed by a direct statement that they engaged in a baltant act of looting before the Towers fell. A libelous accusation but no libel was charged -- because only the living could file suit. How convenient. And soon proven false, yet not voluntarily redacted until a furor was raised by family... But Langewiesche's behavior throughout 2002 leaves little doubt in my mind that this meticulous author and excellent wordsmith was on a mission to plant this sordid (unfounded) tale into the mainstream for purposes of general character assasination, fodder to discredit FDNY responder testimony should such be necessary. No ad hominem there, a real personal attack on every one of those deceased.

Now my positions on some 9/11 'truth' websites are another, and are based solely on Ad Hominems. Because I visit and all I see are people discussing people in the 9/11 movement and that's all, as if the underlying issue had long since escaped their attention.

TJ wrote:
If you don't like particular 9/11 researchers, and/or if you don't accept their hypotheses (with or without scientific proof), then just ignore them! If you don't ignore them, and if you continue to talk & write about them, then you may have little reason to complain about them getting too much attention.

To "Sane TJ's" advice here, and fascinating vignettes of telecom revolution, complete agreement.

But now it seems we have a "lunatic TJ" emerging who does not seem to realize that this is no sacred hallowed ground where every little voice is guaranteed a full hearing (and herrings),

This is a friggin' tavern. When you enter a tavern you don't piss off the innkeeper -- or you get booted. Simple. And if and when you are booted, there's two types of blokes in the world -- those who storm out and find another place to drink...

And then there's the ones who dig in right outside and continue to shout through the windows. Not at the innkeeper, whose mind was set and action clear -- at the audience, all the other patrons, some of who may be wanting to have their own conversations, or drink in peace.

It's kind of weird actually. As if this place is under some kind of attack by people who are wiping their personal business all over the place, then being disruptive, then being booted, then being sanctimonious about it besides.

Fintan has his reasons... they are not mine, or anyone else's... and there's absolutely no need for him to state them. This is Fin & Kat's joint, a nice place to drink -- and the house brew and company is first-rate. And he does leave his windows open so there are ways people can shout in, whether they have something to say or not.

We could all arrive here tomorrow morning and find a picture of a cute fluffy bunny in place of this forum -- if that was his whim. Or worse still, a baby hamster eating broccoli. I'm gonna get you for that one, matt.

And should that happen no doubt the place would be surrounded by sidewalk preachers harping foolishness -- socialist foolishness like it's really the People's Tavern or some such. Hey, if someone writes something on my forehead that I don't like and I wipe it off -- or take their pen away -- that's not censorship man. It's restraint. ;-)

Thanks for the TJ proxy relays CB... but you can tell a lot about people by what they say immediately upon being booted from a tavern and he's not taking it very well. If the next installment is like the last, I won't thank you for the next one. It's getting like the soaps in here, all these people sniping about other people within their earshot. Just why is it so important to do that? As if there's no other tavern down the road. Or a reason that this one is of particular interest.

Inquiring minds aren't, couldn't care less.

___
God save the scene. Oh look TJ's about to do the 'leg thing' again.


Last edited by Hocus Locus on Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well said once again, Hocus! Thanks for your eloquent words, as always they ring true.

I knew you would know what I meant...and I stand by what I meant to say! Laughing

Thanks again. Peace & be well to you and best wishes to all.
Back to top
truthseeker



Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 177
Location: NW U.S.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nice work and well said, Locus.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 24, 25, 26  Next
Page 25 of 26

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.