On Nov 19, 2:22 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 19 Nov 2011 14:37:33 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 10:09=A0pm, John McAdams wrote:
> >> On 9 Nov 2011 08:59:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On 11/8/2011 10:49 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:22:42 -0600, John McAdams
> >> >> =A0wrote:
>
> >> >>> On 8 Nov 2011 09:08:51 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Recently there was a discussion on aaj about Beverly Oliver. =A0I
> >> >>>> recalled sitting next to her at the Mary F. luncheon at NID in 2002.
> >> >>>> I had a number of things on my mind, so was not really paying
> >> >>>> attention to everything else that was going on. =A0While I was
> >> >>>> practicing for my performing at the luncheon a fire alarm went off i=
> >n
> >> >>>> the hotel, and I found myself bundling up my flute and my two poodle=
> >s
> >> >>>> and hightailing it down about twelve flights of stairs. =A0It was a
> >> >>>> false alarm, and after about an hour, everyone went back inside. =A0=
> >But
> >> >>>> by the time I sat down at the luncheon I was just trying to get myse=
> >lf
> >> >>>> grounded and focused for the movement from the Bach Sonata I would b=
> >e
> >> >>>> playing.
>
> >> >>>> I was honored to be seated next to Mary F. =A0She was to my right,
> >> >>>> Beverly Oliver to my left. =A0As Mary was settling in, pulling out h=
> >er
> >> >>>> napkin, smiling and chatting with the others at that end of the tabl=
> >e
> >> >>>> (I don't recall who sat across from me) someone mentioned a sentence
> >> >>>> that contained the words "Judyth Baker". =A0At once, Mary hissed, "W=
> >e
> >> >>>> will not talk about that woman." =A0Everything came to a standstill =
> >for
> >> >>>> a moment, and then conversation resumed. =A0I was not about to ask M=
> >ary
> >> >>>> for details. =A0At the time, I didn't have any idea of the events th=
> >at
> >> >>>> transpired between Judyth and Mary. =A0But now I do, and feel that
> >> >>>> bringing this forth may add just a bit of definition.
>
> >> >>> Here is a letter that Mary circulated to several people on December
> >> >>> 12, 2001.
>
> >> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ferrell.pdf
>
> >> >>> I don't think there is any doubt that Mary was deeply skeptical of
> >> >>> Judyth.
>
> >> >> Exactly right, John. "Charmed" is not a word anyone who knew Mary
> >> >> would use to describe the effect Judyth had on her. At all. Mary was
> >> >> first and foremost a researcher, and she knew how to play her cards
> >> >> close to her vest while she evaluated evidence. And people.
>
> >> >You are still operating with a double standard. You should have attacked
> >> >Mary as vigorously as you attacked Pamela and continue to attack Pamela.
> >> >Imagine, the temerity to listen to Judyth's story and evaluate the
> >> >evidence? She refused to join your lynch mob. Inexcusable.
>
> >> Mary had an open mind, Barb has an open mind, and I have an open mind.
>
> >No. Mary had an open mind.
>
> But we were right, and you were wrong.
No. Mary was right and you were wrong.
Mary got to know Judyth.
Mary kept an open mind.
Mary did not conduct a propaganda campaign against Judyth.
>
> Does an open mind conduce to being right, or being wrong?
Only if you want to have depth to your position.
>
>
>
> >> By 2001, all three of us had concluded that Judyth was a fraud, and
> >> all of us went on the record with that.
>
> >Good for you. You did it in your own way. You waged a propaganda
> >campaign against Judyth but you didn't bother to get to know her. In my
> >book, you failed to do your homework.
>
> You mean to critique a witness one has to have a decades long personal
> relationship?
In Judyth's case, it was seven years. My agreement was based on her having her book published. That is how long that took.
>
> Just reading and analyzing reams and reams of her writing won't do?
For a superficial view, you may be satisfied with that.
>
> You got to know her, and believed her silly assertions.
Not so. I did have sympathy for her plight, in part due to the propaganda campaign against her at this board. Judyth could hardly have manufactured the thousand or more negative posts, could she?
But Sydney White did. She even claimed Judyth had been the victim of an assassination attempt.
>
> You *believed* that "attacks" had forced her out of the country, and
> into asylum in Sweden.
I read the hostile posts on this board every day. Judyth did not write them. Team McAdams did. Even she could not exaggerate the extent of the negativity on aaj.
Are you saying that was all just fun and games, and behind the scenes Team McAdams was schmoozing with Judyth while sipping glug?
>
> Your "process" failed.
My process evolved.
>
> >This is why my blog is titled FINDING JUDYTH.
>
> >Why am I not allowed to follow my own process according to my own
> >timeline?
>
> Had you only done your own thing, your decade-long process would be no
> big deal.
That is how it should be.
>
> But you bitched, gripped at and harassed everybody who didn't believe
> her.
False. I dared to complain about the libel.
It seemed inappropriate and unprofessional to label Judyth a liar and a fraud when she had objective documentation placing her in proximity to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963.
>
> >> To wait until 2011 to finally decide that Judyth is lying does not
> >> make one "open minded." It makes one REALLY SLOW to reach an obvious
> >> conclusion.
That is your position. In my book, you didn't do your homework. You didn't even get to know your adversary. As a result, she apparently blindsided you in Sweden and Toronto.
Your understanding of Judyth is superficial.
Your lack of process failed you.
>
> >You have it all wrong. I am using my process. I have not yet written my
> >article. Your demands are inappropriate. All they show is that you are
> >having a tough time thinking outside of the box when it comes to Judyth.
>
> You are the one who believed her lies. I (and Barb, and a bunch of
> other people) did not.
I kept an open mind. I do my very best in that regard. You don't like it. It gives me an advantage.
>
> Maybe "outside the box" here just means refusal to draw the obvious
> conclusion.
"The obvious" conclusion is that you have to live with what you call failures in Sweden and Toronto. That's why you can't stop complaining at me. I took a different route. You don't like it.
>
> >But you managed to give Sydney White a free pass. She does believe
> >Judyth. She didn't even give you the details you wanted, and you still
> >believe she is truthful.
>
> Why shouldn't I.
Isn't she just another vulnerable and demented person being brainwashed by Judyth? Why are you bothering to treat her with respect?
>
> She hasn't lied for a decade plus like Judyth?
She claimed Judyth was the victim of an assassination attempt. Where do you think she got that idea?
>
> I don't believe her crackpot *conclusions.* But I believe her
> description of what happened.
That is very gentlemanly of you.
>
> >Where do you think Sydney got the idea of an 'assassination attempt'? By
> >your logic, isn't she brainwashed by Judyth? Wouldn't such a crazy idea
> >have to come from Judyth?
>
> Of course it did. But did Judyth claim that at first (only to back
> away later)? Or did White buy the "attacks on Judyth" nonsense, and
> see this as another one?
Did you ask her?
>
> Who knows? It really doesn't matter.
>
Not unless Judyth tries to use this incident in another petition for asylum somewhere.
>
>
> >> Open minded people will accept evidence as it becomes available.
>
> >Really? Not one simply making demands on others?
>
> You refused for a decade to believe what was obvious.
I do not believe anyone who makes demands. That should be obvious.
>
> That's not open minded. You had some irrational need to believe
> Judyth.
>
You cannot claim that. I neither *believed* nor *disbelieved* her then. And I don't now. I am sharing my experiences and opinions. People can decide what to think for themselves.
> Should we credit you with an open mind if you studied the Holocaust
> for a decade, and *finally* at the end of the process decided it
> really happened?
If I had ended up coming face-to-face with Hitler and as a result he decided to surrender to the Allies, yes.
Your viewpoint is superficial and narrow. You seem to have trouble dealing with something different. Your choice.
My process works with Judyth, and it works with other issues as well. The best of historians are able to learn from the past and thus help to create a better future. Your antipathy has illustrated to me that my process is a threat to the current WC defender mindset, which is basically that of an appeal to authority. If so, those who are able to use it will be able to reason their way around the next spate of new programs and books, all intended to shut down the CTs by proclaiming in one form or another yet one more redux of the WCR.
>
> >> Closed minded people will reject evidence if it doesn't fit their
> >> preconceptions.
>
> >Quit making my point for me.
>
> You don't understand the point.
I do. You don't.
>
> *You* are the one who got suckered by Judyth.
False. I was not suckered by Judyth nor by your propaganda campaign against her. Those who can keep an open mind can generally see both sides of the issue. Your repeated negative posts confirm that I have succeeded and you don't like it.
Pamela Brown
findingjduyth.blogspot.com
> On 19 Nov 2011 14:37:33 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 9, 10:09=A0pm, John McAdams
> >> On 9 Nov 2011 08:59:57 -0500, Anthony Marsh
>
> >>
> >> >On 11/8/2011 10:49 PM, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 08 Nov 2011 20:22:42 -0600, John McAdams
> >> >>
>
> >> >>> On 8 Nov 2011 09:08:51 -0500, Pamela Brown
> >> >>> wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Recently there was a discussion on aaj about Beverly Oliver. =A0I
> >> >>>> recalled sitting next to her at the Mary F. luncheon at NID in 2002.
> >> >>>> I had a number of things on my mind, so was not really paying
> >> >>>> attention to everything else that was going on. =A0While I was
> >> >>>> practicing for my performing at the luncheon a fire alarm went off i=
> >n
> >> >>>> the hotel, and I found myself bundling up my flute and my two poodle=
> >s
> >> >>>> and hightailing it down about twelve flights of stairs. =A0It was a
> >> >>>> false alarm, and after about an hour, everyone went back inside. =A0=
> >But
> >> >>>> by the time I sat down at the luncheon I was just trying to get myse=
> >lf
> >> >>>> grounded and focused for the movement from the Bach Sonata I would b=
> >e
> >> >>>> playing.
>
> >> >>>> I was honored to be seated next to Mary F. =A0She was to my right,
> >> >>>> Beverly Oliver to my left. =A0As Mary was settling in, pulling out h=
> >er
> >> >>>> napkin, smiling and chatting with the others at that end of the tabl=
> >e
> >> >>>> (I don't recall who sat across from me) someone mentioned a sentence
> >> >>>> that contained the words "Judyth Baker". =A0At once, Mary hissed, "W=
> >e
> >> >>>> will not talk about that woman." =A0Everything came to a standstill =
> >for
> >> >>>> a moment, and then conversation resumed. =A0I was not about to ask M=
> >ary
> >> >>>> for details. =A0At the time, I didn't have any idea of the events th=
> >at
> >> >>>> transpired between Judyth and Mary. =A0But now I do, and feel that
> >> >>>> bringing this forth may add just a bit of definition.
>
> >> >>> Here is a letter that Mary circulated to several people on December
> >> >>> 12, 2001.
>
> >> >>>http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ferrell.pdf
>
> >> >>> I don't think there is any doubt that Mary was deeply skeptical of
> >> >>> Judyth.
>
> >> >> Exactly right, John. "Charmed" is not a word anyone who knew Mary
> >> >> would use to describe the effect Judyth had on her. At all. Mary was
> >> >> first and foremost a researcher, and she knew how to play her cards
> >> >> close to her vest while she evaluated evidence. And people.
>
> >> >You are still operating with a double standard. You should have attacked
> >> >Mary as vigorously as you attacked Pamela and continue to attack Pamela.
> >> >Imagine, the temerity to listen to Judyth's story and evaluate the
> >> >evidence? She refused to join your lynch mob. Inexcusable.
>
> >> Mary had an open mind, Barb has an open mind, and I have an open mind.
>
> >No. Mary had an open mind.
>
> But we were right, and you were wrong.
No. Mary was right and you were wrong.
Mary got to know Judyth.
Mary kept an open mind.
Mary did not conduct a propaganda campaign against Judyth.
>
> Does an open mind conduce to being right, or being wrong?
Only if you want to have depth to your position.
>
>
>
> >> By 2001, all three of us had concluded that Judyth was a fraud, and
> >> all of us went on the record with that.
>
> >Good for you. You did it in your own way. You waged a propaganda
> >campaign against Judyth but you didn't bother to get to know her. In my
> >book, you failed to do your homework.
>
> You mean to critique a witness one has to have a decades long personal
> relationship?
In Judyth's case, it was seven years. My agreement was based on her having her book published. That is how long that took.
>
> Just reading and analyzing reams and reams of her writing won't do?
For a superficial view, you may be satisfied with that.
>
> You got to know her, and believed her silly assertions.
Not so. I did have sympathy for her plight, in part due to the propaganda campaign against her at this board. Judyth could hardly have manufactured the thousand or more negative posts, could she?
But Sydney White did. She even claimed Judyth had been the victim of an assassination attempt.
>
> You *believed* that "attacks" had forced her out of the country, and
> into asylum in Sweden.
I read the hostile posts on this board every day. Judyth did not write them. Team McAdams did. Even she could not exaggerate the extent of the negativity on aaj.
Are you saying that was all just fun and games, and behind the scenes Team McAdams was schmoozing with Judyth while sipping glug?
>
> Your "process" failed.
My process evolved.
>
> >This is why my blog is titled FINDING JUDYTH.
>
> >Why am I not allowed to follow my own process according to my own
> >timeline?
>
> Had you only done your own thing, your decade-long process would be no
> big deal.
That is how it should be.
>
> But you bitched, gripped at and harassed everybody who didn't believe
> her.
False. I dared to complain about the libel.
It seemed inappropriate and unprofessional to label Judyth a liar and a fraud when she had objective documentation placing her in proximity to LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963.
>
> >> To wait until 2011 to finally decide that Judyth is lying does not
> >> make one "open minded." It makes one REALLY SLOW to reach an obvious
> >> conclusion.
That is your position. In my book, you didn't do your homework. You didn't even get to know your adversary. As a result, she apparently blindsided you in Sweden and Toronto.
Your understanding of Judyth is superficial.
Your lack of process failed you.
>
> >You have it all wrong. I am using my process. I have not yet written my
> >article. Your demands are inappropriate. All they show is that you are
> >having a tough time thinking outside of the box when it comes to Judyth.
>
> You are the one who believed her lies. I (and Barb, and a bunch of
> other people) did not.
I kept an open mind. I do my very best in that regard. You don't like it. It gives me an advantage.
>
> Maybe "outside the box" here just means refusal to draw the obvious
> conclusion.
"The obvious" conclusion is that you have to live with what you call failures in Sweden and Toronto. That's why you can't stop complaining at me. I took a different route. You don't like it.
>
> >But you managed to give Sydney White a free pass. She does believe
> >Judyth. She didn't even give you the details you wanted, and you still
> >believe she is truthful.
>
> Why shouldn't I.
Isn't she just another vulnerable and demented person being brainwashed by Judyth? Why are you bothering to treat her with respect?
>
> She hasn't lied for a decade plus like Judyth?
She claimed Judyth was the victim of an assassination attempt. Where do you think she got that idea?
>
> I don't believe her crackpot *conclusions.* But I believe her
> description of what happened.
That is very gentlemanly of you.
>
> >Where do you think Sydney got the idea of an 'assassination attempt'? By
> >your logic, isn't she brainwashed by Judyth? Wouldn't such a crazy idea
> >have to come from Judyth?
>
> Of course it did. But did Judyth claim that at first (only to back
> away later)? Or did White buy the "attacks on Judyth" nonsense, and
> see this as another one?
Did you ask her?
>
> Who knows? It really doesn't matter.
>
Not unless Judyth tries to use this incident in another petition for asylum somewhere.
>
>
> >> Open minded people will accept evidence as it becomes available.
>
> >Really? Not one simply making demands on others?
>
> You refused for a decade to believe what was obvious.
I do not believe anyone who makes demands. That should be obvious.
>
> That's not open minded. You had some irrational need to believe
> Judyth.
>
You cannot claim that. I neither *believed* nor *disbelieved* her then. And I don't now. I am sharing my experiences and opinions. People can decide what to think for themselves.
> Should we credit you with an open mind if you studied the Holocaust
> for a decade, and *finally* at the end of the process decided it
> really happened?
If I had ended up coming face-to-face with Hitler and as a result he decided to surrender to the Allies, yes.
Your viewpoint is superficial and narrow. You seem to have trouble dealing with something different. Your choice.
My process works with Judyth, and it works with other issues as well. The best of historians are able to learn from the past and thus help to create a better future. Your antipathy has illustrated to me that my process is a threat to the current WC defender mindset, which is basically that of an appeal to authority. If so, those who are able to use it will be able to reason their way around the next spate of new programs and books, all intended to shut down the CTs by proclaiming in one form or another yet one more redux of the WCR.
>
> >> Closed minded people will reject evidence if it doesn't fit their
> >> preconceptions.
>
> >Quit making my point for me.
>
> You don't understand the point.
I do. You don't.
>
> *You* are the one who got suckered by Judyth.
False. I was not suckered by Judyth nor by your propaganda campaign against her. Those who can keep an open mind can generally see both sides of the issue. Your repeated negative posts confirm that I have succeeded and you don't like it.
Pamela Brown
findingjduyth.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment