You just replied with a later post
Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths
More rubbish from the Judy Wood cult--and Judy herself!--in response to my 5-star review on amazon.com
Posted on Jul 1, 2012 12:42:11 PM PDT
Last edited by the author 13 hours ago
Last edited by the author 13 hours ago
S. Tiller says:
Mr. Fetzer, please answer the original questions that were posed to you, and get to the point as I am tired of reading your faux answers. When are YOU filing your legal case regarding 9-11 ?
You just replied with a later post
You just replied with a later post
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 6:10:50 PM PDT
Emmanuel Goldstein says:
As far as I'm concerned, Fetzer works for the government with the object to obscure the fact that a Directed Energy Weapon "dustified" the World Trade Center complex. He should just be ignored for being the manipulative troll that he is.
Curriculum Vitae for Cognitive Science
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/cognitivescience.html
Curriculum Vitae for Cognitive Science
http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/cognitivescience.html
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 6:41:34 PM PDT
Ben Collet says:
So Ms Wood herself weighs in with a by now expected bit of slander. Interesting that she takes the name of the person created by the government in Orwell's 1984.
You replied with a later post
You replied with a later post
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 4:38:18 AM PDT
Last edited by you 4 minutes ago
Last edited by you 4 minutes ago
James H. Fetzer says:
Nice point, Ben. And why does she only focus on my work on cognitive science, when I have done so much on the philosophy of science and theoretical foundations of artificial intelligence, cognitive science, evolution and mentality and even the nature of morality in relation to politics? See http://www.d.umn.edu/~jfetzer/ This is called slanting evidence or "special pleading". Besides, anyone who actually read what I have done in the area of cognitive science would appreciate that I am clarifying the nature of mind in relation to the computational paradigm, which maintains that minds are machines and operate based upon the same principles as computers, which I deny.
This reprehensible kind of sloppy research and lack of understanding of those whom she criticizes demonstrates the inferior quality of her reasoning ability in general. Ask yourself why any rational agent would be attacking the author of a 5-star review? This suggests that, when she participates in a YouTube attributing to me views of one of my guests on "The Real Deal", she simply doesn't care that she is thereby committing the disgrace of deliberately misrepresenting my views. That seems to be part and parcel of her modus operandi. Perhaps that is how she is able to pull the wool over those less knowing and more gullible, such as Matthew Naus, who seems to believe everything she says.
This reprehensible kind of sloppy research and lack of understanding of those whom she criticizes demonstrates the inferior quality of her reasoning ability in general. Ask yourself why any rational agent would be attacking the author of a 5-star review? This suggests that, when she participates in a YouTube attributing to me views of one of my guests on "The Real Deal", she simply doesn't care that she is thereby committing the disgrace of deliberately misrepresenting my views. That seems to be part and parcel of her modus operandi. Perhaps that is how she is able to pull the wool over those less knowing and more gullible, such as Matthew Naus, who seems to believe everything she says.
Your post, in reply to an earlier post on Jul 2, 2012 4:56:29 AM PDT
You edited this post
You edited this post
James H. Fetzer says:
S. Tiller--or is it Andrew Johnson?--appears to have no more grasp of the realities of the situation than does Matthew Naus. To appreciate that this is a disinfo op from members of the Judy Wood cult, consider that this phrase, "perception management", which I am quite sure she has suggested that her groupies, such as Matthew Naus, should use, but is so vague and nebulous that it could be applied to any assertion by anyone that is intended to inform an audience of their point of view.
That this is a sham can be exposed by noting that there are at least two varieties of "perception management", POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. Is the information provided intended to cast a POSITIVE LIGHT on the subject or a NEGATIVE ONE? In other words, this is simply an alternative way to describe "spin". Are things being spun in a POSITIVE MANNER or in a NEGATIVE ONE? And that is crucial, since it exposes the charade being conducted here. What was the "spin" of the following?
(1) My featuring Judy Wood on my radio programs 15 times: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(2) My publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(3) My providing Judy Wood three hours to speak in Madison: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(4) My inviting Judy Wood to speak at the Vancouver Hearings: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(5) My posting a 5-star review of Judy's book on amazon.com: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
Once you draw a distinction between POSITIVE perception management and NEGATIVE perception management, it becomes apparent that my actions toward her have all been POSITIVE--right down to posting the 5-star review that has led to the succession of attacks by members of her cult and now by Judy Wood using the name "Emmanuel Goldstein". How shabby is that? And for her to suggest my research on cognitive science SUPPORTS HER NEGATIVE ATTACK is completely absurd.
SHE HAS NO IDEA WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT. I am sorry, but at this point in time and at this stage of the exchange taking place here, no one should be in any doubt as to who is right and who is wrong about me and my support for the work and the book of Judy Wood. Re Judy Wood the person, alas, that's another matter entirely, where it should be obvious by now that she has lost her way. And her profound paranoia has even seduced previously good men like Matt Naus to The Dark Side.
That this is a sham can be exposed by noting that there are at least two varieties of "perception management", POSITIVE and NEGATIVE. Is the information provided intended to cast a POSITIVE LIGHT on the subject or a NEGATIVE ONE? In other words, this is simply an alternative way to describe "spin". Are things being spun in a POSITIVE MANNER or in a NEGATIVE ONE? And that is crucial, since it exposes the charade being conducted here. What was the "spin" of the following?
(1) My featuring Judy Wood on my radio programs 15 times: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(2) My publishing a chapter by her in THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(3) My providing Judy Wood three hours to speak in Madison: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(4) My inviting Judy Wood to speak at the Vancouver Hearings: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
(5) My posting a 5-star review of Judy's book on amazon.com: POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE?
Once you draw a distinction between POSITIVE perception management and NEGATIVE perception management, it becomes apparent that my actions toward her have all been POSITIVE--right down to posting the 5-star review that has led to the succession of attacks by members of her cult and now by Judy Wood using the name "Emmanuel Goldstein". How shabby is that? And for her to suggest my research on cognitive science SUPPORTS HER NEGATIVE ATTACK is completely absurd.
SHE HAS NO IDEA WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT. I am sorry, but at this point in time and at this stage of the exchange taking place here, no one should be in any doubt as to who is right and who is wrong about me and my support for the work and the book of Judy Wood. Re Judy Wood the person, alas, that's another matter entirely, where it should be obvious by now that she has lost her way. And her profound paranoia has even seduced previously good men like Matt Naus to The Dark Side.
Views: 91
Comment
About
Welcome to
9/11 Scholars Forum
© 2024 Created by James H. Fetzer.
Powered by
You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!
Join 9/11 Scholars Forum