+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School (/thread-8577.html)
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 21-05-2012
Good luck.
The EF thread I started -- A Quest for the Truth: Who or What is Len Colby? -- and in which I cited numerous inconsistent writing styles all posted under the name "Len Colby" to support what now we can call my "hydra" hypothesis has been sanitized from EF.
Try it for yourself: http://educationforu...showtopic=10832
You'll get the following message:
Sorry, we couldn't find that!
[#10340]
We could not determine which topic you were attempting to view.
Need Help?
Click here to log in
Our help documentation
Contact the community administrator
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 21-05-2012
I'm finding bits of pieces of my original outing of "Len Colby" as a hydra-headed false identity used by numerous posters with widely varying literary skills. The following is from an exchange with the honorable Mark Stapleton ( post 33 at http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13278&st=30 ):
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.
The "Colby" entity replied with an argument from authority (post 36):
Dr. Gerald R. McMenamin, Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, pg 163
MA - Linguistics California State University -Fresno 1972
PhD - Spanish linguistics El Colegio de Mexico 1978
Since 1980 professor of linguistics at CSU-Fresno,
"Dr. McMenamin has taught various courses and special training seminars in linguistic stylistics and has worked on more than 250 civil and criminal cases of questioned authorship. He is the author of several publications in forensic linguistics, including the 1993 book Forensic Stylistics.
Pg vii
So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one? People often do the opposite, pretend to be more than one person so as to make it appear their position has wider support (Google - sock puppet) . The three of you are looking like paranoid fools.
I responded thusly:
[B][B]If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.
According to Gerald R. McMenamin, author of Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics, "Reference writings," against which suspect writing samples can be compared, must be identified and collected before meaningful analyses can be conducted.
Alas, in the cases of "Colby" posters, "reference writings" neither can be identified nor collected. There are simply too many significantly divergent examples from which to select a consistant reference style.
So further applications of McMenamin's analyses are stymied -- other than within so-called "negative template" applications.
McMenamin does note the following: "Individual differences in writing styles are, therefore, due to the writer's choice of available alternatives."
He adds, "Identification and analysis of a writer's choices, i.e., of his or her style markers, constitute stylistic analysis which is well established as a method of author identification in literary and forensic contexts."
So "Colby" and "his" masters are either choosing to present as clearly recognizable divergent authors/entities, sufficiently incompetent and/or arrogant to the degree that they do not fear exposure, or profoundly disturbed. Perhaps even possessed.
Where's father Karas when we need him?
When "Colby" asks, "So what exactly would two or more people gain from pretending to be one," "he" is conducting a circular argument akin to Vincent Bugliosi's (I paraphrase), "Why would conspirators choose a shmuck like LHO to do their work?"
No one, least of all I, would suggest that "Colby's" masters intend to present such easily identifiable multiple authors for "his" posts. This is a straw man argument.
"Colby" and "his" masters hold you and me in contempt. They think we're stupid and gullible.
Such is their fatal flaw.
They are losing. We have them on the run.
"Colby" and "his" masters are not used to being called on their pseudo-intellectual posturings. If "Colby" is in search of qualifications for posts, "he" might start with "his" own for any number of pontifications offered by "his" collective entity on subjects clearly beyond "his" meager intellect -- as displayed, of course, on these cyber pages.
This is a joke, ladies and gentlemen. "Colby" are exposed.
Keep sticking your extremities in my meat grinder. It smells like victory. [/B][/B]
Again and alas, my original exposure thread is long gone.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 21-05-2012
Another element of the "Colby" hydra's mission brief:
On post 17 of this EF thread
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13278&st=15
I make reference to a different EF thread in which "Colby" purposefully and cleverly misquoted me in order to disparage me:
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"!!!
Of course, when you try to access my full presentation on its original thread:
http://educationforu...h...st&p=151859
guess what you'll find ...
NOTHING!
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Keith Millea - 21-05-2012
Quote:If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.
It is my belief that IT'S been retooled.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Jan Klimkowski - 21-05-2012
Keith Millea Wrote:Quote:If our enemies are smart, they'll seriously retool the "Colby" entity so as to take into account the fact that we are on to "him" and their games.
It is my belief that IT'S been retooled.
For those of us who remember the old "Denzel Washington" guise before the "shaded stubble", I'll adopt my best Hannibal Lecter voice:
"Love the new look."
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Greg Burnham - 21-05-2012
Albert, I merely corrected your error regarding a simple definition. You could have just said: "Thanks, I stand corrected."
Albert Doyle Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert,
As a point of logic:
A straw man fallacy occurs when one participant in a debate exaggerates the argument of his opponent in order to more easily defeat that argument. I don't believe that you have demonstrated a straw man on Cinque's part in this instance.
No, he's clearly using a strawman. A strawman is when you set-up a straw figure that isn't a sincere effort to answer the main point and then knock it down with the suggestion you have answered the main point. Cinque has clearly done that with his post-Baker lunch argument while failing to answer why Fritz noted the Baker encounter well before mentioning "Out on the steps with Bill Shelley in front". Cinque knows there wasn't enough time for Oswald to eat lunch after the Baker encounter, but he's using it to avoid answering why Fritz wrote his notes in that particular chronological order.
No disrespect Greg but you are trying to use honorable rules of debate and logic with two WWF clowns in Fetzer and Cinque over there. Cinque is an obnoxious little pissant who doesn't belong in the same ring as the people on EF, who shouldn't be taking him as seriously as they are. I swear he's almost like a Saturday Night Live character in a skit.
Description of Straw Man
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a [FONT=arial !important]person[/FONT] simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
- Person A has position X.
- Person B [FONT=arial !important]presents[/FONT] position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
- Person B attacks position Y.
- Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Examples of Straw Manhttp://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html
- Prof. Jones: "The [FONT=arial !important]university[/FONT] just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
- Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
- Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
- Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
- Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."
No offense Greg but I think what you are doing here only proves my point. For your entry to have any merit you would have to show where Cinque made any attempt to answer the main point about the chronological order of Fritz's entry. I think you are offering inert content that is counterproductive to the thread. I think you will get a perfect alignment of the logical universe just about the same time Fetzer and Cinque prove their theoretical arguments.
Cinque loves this by the way. It helps feed and maintain his purpose. You see the problem with what you're doing here Greg is that it stops short of analyzing why Fritz wrote "had lunch" after the Baker encounter. I honestly believe Baker wrote that because he was foreshortening Oswald's telling him that, since he had already eaten lunch, he went to the 1st floor and exited. When you view Fritz's notes in that context they make perfect sense. Proof of Cinque's strawman here is that he knows the 1 minute Oswald had to depart was not enough time to eat lunch and is using that as a distraction to not answer what, then, Fritz's notes mean? I dare say I've answered that while you and Cinque display the same trait of not only not answering this but showing no interest in doing so either while dwelling on sophist points.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Charles Drago - 21-05-2012
I just found my original comparison of two distinct "Colby" literary incarnations on one of my old external hard drives:
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?
As for the "Colby" entity purposefully changing/de-contextualizing my 9-11 Pentagon damage remarks, I found the following contemporaneous message from EF moderator Kathy Beckett in which she takes "Colby" to task for doing exactly what I claimed he did:
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.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 22-05-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert, I merely corrected your error regarding a simple definition. You could have just said: "Thanks, I stand corrected."
A tad arrogant there Greg considering you ignored my response showing you why you were wrong.
.
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Greg Burnham - 22-05-2012
Albert Doyle Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert, I merely corrected your error regarding a simple definition. You could have just said: "Thanks, I stand corrected."
A tad arrogant there Greg considering you ignored my response showing you why you were wrong.
.
What the hell about this don't you get?
[size=12]You made a blunder. You misidentified Cinque's error as a logical fallacy called: The Straw Man.
The blunder is of no consequence. What you actually identified is Cinque's intellectual dishonesty.
At least call it what it is.
As for your other contentions regarding the issue...good for you. POST THEM YOURSELF.
I have other fucking fish to fry.
:banghead:
You'd be well advised to hop out of my pan. Pronto--[/SIZE]
The Danger Of The Fetzer Assassination School - Albert Doyle - 22-05-2012
Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert Doyle Wrote:Greg Burnham Wrote:Albert, I merely corrected your error regarding a simple definition. You could have just said: "Thanks, I stand corrected."
A tad arrogant there Greg considering you ignored my response showing you why you were wrong.
.
What the hell about this don't you get?
[size=12]You made a blunder. You misidentified Cinque's error as a logical fallacy called: The Straw Man.
The blunder is of no consequence. What you actually identified is Cinque's intellectual dishonesty.
At least call it what it is.
As for your other contentions regarding the issue...good for you. POST THEM YOURSELF.
I have other fucking fish to fry.
:banghead:
You'd be well advised to hop out of my pan. Pronto--[/SIZE]
I already explained to you that Cinque used the 'had lunch' issue to avoid answering the real issue in question. That is, the reason why Fritz wrote about the Baker encounter well before describing Oswald being out front with Shelley. I already explained that Cinque knew that Oswald hadn't eaten lunch after the Baker encounter because there wasn't enough time. The reason he shifted the argument to this impossible lunch time was because he was trying to avoid the main point of Fritz mentioning the Baker encounter long before Oswald's going out to the front steps. When you make one argument in order to avoid another that is, by definition, a strawman. Sorry, but I believe I'm correct on this.
And now James DiEugenio, of all people, is agreeing with Cinque's delusions. Unfortunately, James is wrong. Lovelady did not lose any weight in the Groden picture. He's as thin as he was in the FBI picture Cinque describes as "scrawny".