10-04-2010, 05:26 AM
Michael, My apologies for misspelling your name and for not realizing you
were quoting from the very chapter I though you had overlooked. You are
right for taking me to task for those mistakes of mine and I apologize to you.
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Apr 10 2010, 02:52 AM' post='189331']
JIM REPLIES TO MICHAEL HOGAN (FOR THE SECOND TIME)
It's hard for me to place any other interpretation upon what Michael Hogan
posted than that it was intended to create a negative impression before the
interview with Ed Haslam, which has now been broadcast (first, before the
hour with Jesse Ventura, instead of second, as I had intended). The sound
quality with Ed was far superior to the sound quality with Jesse, which may
have motivated a change in their order. My wife listed to parts of the Jesse
hour and said that I hardly gave him a chance to talk! Of that, I am guilty!
On the other hand, I gave Ed lots of time to talk. When I read this latest
post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael said that he had
reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter
13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence
of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in
relation to Judyth. It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her
on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than
on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.
As for the rest, there is an old English word that applies here, "Piffle!" Why
he even bothered to write this is beyond me. I gave my take about what
he had to say and he has given his. As much as it fascinates me to read
about Hogan's "anticipations", there are bigger fish to fry. I have put up a
new blog about Ed Haslam and Judyth, which includes the chapter about
"The Witness" from his earlier book, MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS.
If anyone is interested in the history of the relationship between Judyth and
Lee, they might want to read it. If not, that's fine, too. The blog is here:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html
[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189329' date='Apr 9 2010, 11:01 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189327' date='Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE
This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed
Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively
than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears
to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be
broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that
he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has
told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth
until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference
work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take
a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.[/quote]
The beauty of the written word in a format like the Education Forum is that readers
can make their own judgments about whether a writer is correct or not.
My post did not attack Ed Haslam. Nor was it preemptive of anything.
Fetzer's assignment of motive is ridiculous.
It is clear I was giving a personal impression of an answer Haslam gave,
not attacking him. For Fetzer to insinuate anything else....
Nor did I use the word "evasive" in refererence to Ed Haslam, as Fetzer implies.
His reply is a personal diatribe, directed at me and doesn't attempt to address
the one basic and reasonable question I asked in my post.
Fetzer tries to win arguments by intimidation, rather than employing the logical
process that he professes to be so fond of and considers himself so good at.
Invariably, if someone posts something that Fetzer does not approve of,
he steers the discussion into a personal and desultory one..
I tried hard to make my account of Ed Haslam as non-combative as possible.
I referred to Haslam as "an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man."
I anticipated that Fetzer would give an ill-reasoned and vitriolic response.
Unfortunately I was right.
In Fetzer's language, I am attacking Haslam. Absurd.
The belated half-a____ P.S. added by him changes nothing.
He could have at least spelled my name right in his edit.
[/quote]
[/quote]
were quoting from the very chapter I though you had overlooked. You are
right for taking me to task for those mistakes of mine and I apologize to you.
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' date='Apr 10 2010, 02:52 AM' post='189331']
JIM REPLIES TO MICHAEL HOGAN (FOR THE SECOND TIME)
It's hard for me to place any other interpretation upon what Michael Hogan
posted than that it was intended to create a negative impression before the
interview with Ed Haslam, which has now been broadcast (first, before the
hour with Jesse Ventura, instead of second, as I had intended). The sound
quality with Ed was far superior to the sound quality with Jesse, which may
have motivated a change in their order. My wife listed to parts of the Jesse
hour and said that I hardly gave him a chance to talk! Of that, I am guilty!
On the other hand, I gave Ed lots of time to talk. When I read this latest
post, I picked up my copy and noticed that, while Michael said that he had
reread the appendix, "Judyth's Story", but apparently he ignored Chapter
13, The Witness, which he does not mention. I question the competence
of someone who claims to have read a book but forgets the key chapter in
relation to Judyth. It discusses "60 Minutes" enthusiasm for featuring her
on one of its programs, where it spend more time and money on her than
on any other prospective feature. So Michael might want to reread it, too.
As for the rest, there is an old English word that applies here, "Piffle!" Why
he even bothered to write this is beyond me. I gave my take about what
he had to say and he has given his. As much as it fascinates me to read
about Hogan's "anticipations", there are bigger fish to fry. I have put up a
new blog about Ed Haslam and Judyth, which includes the chapter about
"The Witness" from his earlier book, MARY, FERRIE & THE MONKEY VIRUS.
If anyone is interested in the history of the relationship between Judyth and
Lee, they might want to read it. If not, that's fine, too. The blog is here:
http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2010/04/ed...rys-monkey.html
[quote name='Michael Hogan' post='189329' date='Apr 9 2010, 11:01 PM']
[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='189327' date='Apr 9 2010, 05:15 PM']
JIM REPLIES TO HORGAN AND WILL INVITE JUDYTH TO ADD MORE
This is a very odd report. At this point in time, Ed Haslam has interviewed
Judyth for around 1,000 hours and has interrogated her more extensively
than anyone else alive, so far as I am able to ascertain. Michael appears
to want to launch a "preemptive attack" on Ed before the interview to be
broadcast this evening. I can assure you, no one is going to conclude that
he is being either "vague" or "general" or "evasive" after hearing it. He has
told me that he does not want to take on extensive discussion about Judyth
until her book, ME & LEE, has appeared, no doubt to have a basic reference
work to which interested parties can be directed. I will invite Judyth to take
a look at this. Meanwhile, everyone should listen to Ed Haslam this evening.[/quote]
The beauty of the written word in a format like the Education Forum is that readers
can make their own judgments about whether a writer is correct or not.
My post did not attack Ed Haslam. Nor was it preemptive of anything.
Fetzer's assignment of motive is ridiculous.
It is clear I was giving a personal impression of an answer Haslam gave,
not attacking him. For Fetzer to insinuate anything else....
Nor did I use the word "evasive" in refererence to Ed Haslam, as Fetzer implies.
His reply is a personal diatribe, directed at me and doesn't attempt to address
the one basic and reasonable question I asked in my post.
Fetzer tries to win arguments by intimidation, rather than employing the logical
process that he professes to be so fond of and considers himself so good at.
Invariably, if someone posts something that Fetzer does not approve of,
he steers the discussion into a personal and desultory one..
I tried hard to make my account of Ed Haslam as non-combative as possible.
I referred to Haslam as "an intelligent, affable, honest and reasonable man."
I anticipated that Fetzer would give an ill-reasoned and vitriolic response.
Unfortunately I was right.
In Fetzer's language, I am attacking Haslam. Absurd.
The belated half-a____ P.S. added by him changes nothing.
He could have at least spelled my name right in his edit.
[/quote]
[/quote]