On Dec 7, 8:36 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> This post could be titled "Pamelaplaysthevictim."
>
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500,PamelaBrown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500,PamelaBrown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
> >> >you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
> >> >you, my posts would be and have been rejected.
>
> >> Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
> >> to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
> >> flagged for moderation.
>
> >Really? That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse. My
> >statement stands.
>
> PoorvictimPamela!
What do you mean by that?
>
> She is attached to playing thevictim.
Au contraire.
>
> She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
> moderator privileges.(1)
False. I speak about a slanted field. What is wrong with that?
>
> Barb earned her status,Pamela.
>
On Team McAdams?
>
> >You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
> >to think. That is not effective. Provide the information without
> >commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.
>
> No,Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
> conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.
False. I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.
>
>
>
> >> ... and it has been the downfall of several, including
> >> you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
> >> methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
> >> blind eyes to everything else as you did.
>
> >False. I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do. I am using
> >a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
> >others as well.
>
> But it hasn't worked with Judyth. You've been suckered by her.(3)
False. I kept an open mind.
>
> And you can't admit that.(4)
False. I had an agreement. I used a process.
>
>
>
> >False. I kept an open mind and learned to understand her. It was a
> >valuable experience. It must bug you because you just can't seem to
> >let me be.
>
> Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)
>
Since when is correcting false statements an 'attack post'?
>
> >> You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
> >> mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.
>
> >False. Anything like that would be censored. You can post whatever
> >you choose. Not the rest of us.
>
> Poor, victimizedPamela!
Anyone can read the threads and decide for themselves.
>
> It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
> stuff we should have rejected.(6)
False. Everything about my posts is scrutinized.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >. You ran your
> >> own smear campaign on Judyth's behalf. That hasn't worked out very
> >> well for you,Pamela... as I would think you can see, especially now
> >> that you say you've seen the light about Judyth's story. So one has to
> >> wonder why you keep beating the same drum.I do not deny that there are
> >> some who said quite cruel things about Judyth over the years. I have
> >> focused on her story...her claims, and have said more than a few times
> >> that I feel sorry for her. I do not believe her story .... whether she
> >> believes it or not, I cannot say. There is a difference between
> >> attacking the claims one makes and attacking them as a person. You do
> >> not seem to grasp the difference.
>
> >There certainly is a difference between attacking the person and attacking
> >the claims and I sincerely hope you will focus on issues and not me.
>
> ROFLMAO!!
Wouldn't that be a nice change?
>
> Pamelais constanting attacking people who don't believe Judyth. She
> in fact won't address any issues about Judyth, since they virtually
> all show that Judyth is a fraud.(7)
False. Strawman. I don't tell people what to think. I ask that they think for themselves.
>
> >In
> >fact, I am starting to wonder if it is I you want to target now and not
> >Judyth? I certainly hope I am mistaken.
>
> This fromPamela, who for a decide has been targeting people who don't
> believe Judyth.(8)
False. I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >I have done nothing to warrant such lengthy posts. I have not claimed to
> >know LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. I have not claimed to be a
> >witness in Dallas to the assassination. I cannot imagine what there is to
> >focus on about me at all.
>
> Because you are constantly attacking people who don't believe Judyth.(9)
False. I correct false statements.
>
> If you don't want the focus on you, cease the attacks.(10)
False. A reply correcting false statements is not an attack.
>
> > Negative rambling simply gives credence to the fact that the one posting
> >in such a manner is not happy with where they are at. Anyone can see
> >that.
>
> It's you who were suckered. It's you who were thrown under the bus by
> Judyth.(11)
False. Strawman. I kept an open mind.
>
> Barb and I and virtually everybody else here were right about Judyth a
> decade ago.
Your opinion. You are entitled.
>
> I think you are profoundly unhappy about your role, but you take it
> out in aggression directed at those of us who figured Judyth out while
> you were dilly-dallying.
Seems my process is enough of a problem for strawman to have to be tossed out right and left. What better confirmation can I have that I am on the right track?
>
>
>
> >You have no idea of how many of my posts were rejected. Your posts
> >are never rejected. Apples and oranges.
>
> PoorPamela!
Such empathy!
>
> >> >I want nothing to do with Team McAdams and their campaign against Judyth.
> >> >I have made that clear. =A0There is no solution in the Team McAdams camp.
> >> >I want to understand Judyth; Team McAdams wants to destroy her. Can you
> >> >perceive the difference?
>
> >> No. Because there is no "Team McAdams" ... that is your invention. I
>
> >Let's let the readers decide that.
>
> I suppose I should be flattered thatPamelathinks I have a "team."
There is a team.
>
> But in fact, we probably should reject posts where she implies there
> is some nefarious conspiracy against Judyth.
Anyone can read the threads for themself.
>
> >> have no campaign against Judyth .... I have pursued verifying the
> >> claims she makes. That's research into her story. Can you perceive the
> >> difference? Anyone who finds Judyth's story lacking, for whatever
> >> reason, does not mean they are part of some team or some campaign.
> >> People with like interests and like conclusions communicate, comment
> >> on posts suportively, etc all the time. The issue of Judyth's story is
> >> no different. Why should it be?
>
> >You might want to check with McAdams. He seems quite comfortable with the
> >campaign against Judyth and appears to think she deserved it.
>
> If "campaign" means vetting and check her story, she did.
>
> And you hated that!
>
> You had some emotional attachment to her.
>
> You could not *stand* that people didn't believe her.
>
> And you still can't.(12)
False. Strawmen. I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >But what is the objective of a propaganda smear campaign if there is no
> >election? How do you measure success or failure?
>
> You are the one conducting the smear campaign,Pamela.(13)
False. I correct false statements.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
> This post could be titled "Pamelaplaysthevictim."
>
> On 7 Dec 2011 21:19:16 -0500,PamelaBrown
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 6, 9:00=A0pm, Barb Junkkarinen
> >> On 6 Dec 2011 19:08:34 -0500,PamelaBrown
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >For one, your posts are not moderated. =A0You may speak your mind, as
> >> >you have done here. =A0If I were to say anything along these lines about
> >> >you, my posts would be and have been rejected.
>
> >> Nope. I don't post anything that I would not approve for anyone else
> >> to post, and there is nothing in what I said that should have been
> >> flagged for moderation.
>
> >Really? That is a case of the fox watching the henhouse. My
> >statement stands.
>
> PoorvictimPamela!
What do you mean by that?
>
> She is attached to playing thevictim.
Au contraire.
>
> She attacks people constantly, but then bitches that she doesn't have
> moderator privileges.(1)
False. I speak about a slanted field. What is wrong with that?
>
> Barb earned her status,Pamela.
>
On Team McAdams?
>
> >You act as though you can make a snap judgment and decide what others are
> >to think. That is not effective. Provide the information without
> >commentary and let everyone decide for themselves what to think.
>
> No,Pamela, you act as though nobody is allowed to come to any
> conclusion about Judyth until *you* decide they are allowed to.
False. I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> That's a lot of chutzpah on your part.
>
>
>
> >> ... and it has been the downfall of several, including
> >> you. She is smart, she is charming, she can pour it on. Not a good
> >> methodology, imo, but there are still people doing it and turning
> >> blind eyes to everything else as you did.
>
> >False. I don't reach conclusions in the same way you do. I am using
> >a process that works with Judyth and I believe it will work with
> >others as well.
>
> But it hasn't worked with Judyth. You've been suckered by her.(3)
False. I kept an open mind.
>
> And you can't admit that.(4)
False. I had an agreement. I used a process.
>
>
>
> >False. I kept an open mind and learned to understand her. It was a
> >valuable experience. It must bug you because you just can't seem to
> >let me be.
>
> Barb could "let it be" if you would cease your attack posts.(5)
>
Since when is correcting false statements an 'attack post'?
>
> >> You called several of us liars and frauds and dishonest and rumour
> >> mongers and careless, etc. Constantly.
>
> >False. Anything like that would be censored. You can post whatever
> >you choose. Not the rest of us.
>
> Poor, victimizedPamela!
Anyone can read the threads and decide for themselves.
>
> It's true we moderators have let her get away with a fair amount of
> stuff we should have rejected.(6)
False. Everything about my posts is scrutinized.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >. You ran your
> >> own smear campaign on Judyth's behalf. That hasn't worked out very
> >> well for you,Pamela... as I would think you can see, especially now
> >> that you say you've seen the light about Judyth's story. So one has to
> >> wonder why you keep beating the same drum.I do not deny that there are
> >> some who said quite cruel things about Judyth over the years. I have
> >> focused on her story...her claims, and have said more than a few times
> >> that I feel sorry for her. I do not believe her story .... whether she
> >> believes it or not, I cannot say. There is a difference between
> >> attacking the claims one makes and attacking them as a person. You do
> >> not seem to grasp the difference.
>
> >There certainly is a difference between attacking the person and attacking
> >the claims and I sincerely hope you will focus on issues and not me.
>
> ROFLMAO!!
Wouldn't that be a nice change?
>
> Pamelais constanting attacking people who don't believe Judyth. She
> in fact won't address any issues about Judyth, since they virtually
> all show that Judyth is a fraud.(7)
False. Strawman. I don't tell people what to think. I ask that they think for themselves.
>
> >In
> >fact, I am starting to wonder if it is I you want to target now and not
> >Judyth? I certainly hope I am mistaken.
>
> This fromPamela, who for a decide has been targeting people who don't
> believe Judyth.(8)
False. I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >I have done nothing to warrant such lengthy posts. I have not claimed to
> >know LHO in NOLA in the summer of 1963. I have not claimed to be a
> >witness in Dallas to the assassination. I cannot imagine what there is to
> >focus on about me at all.
>
> Because you are constantly attacking people who don't believe Judyth.(9)
False. I correct false statements.
>
> If you don't want the focus on you, cease the attacks.(10)
False. A reply correcting false statements is not an attack.
>
> > Negative rambling simply gives credence to the fact that the one posting
> >in such a manner is not happy with where they are at. Anyone can see
> >that.
>
> It's you who were suckered. It's you who were thrown under the bus by
> Judyth.(11)
False. Strawman. I kept an open mind.
>
> Barb and I and virtually everybody else here were right about Judyth a
> decade ago.
Your opinion. You are entitled.
>
> I think you are profoundly unhappy about your role, but you take it
> out in aggression directed at those of us who figured Judyth out while
> you were dilly-dallying.
Seems my process is enough of a problem for strawman to have to be tossed out right and left. What better confirmation can I have that I am on the right track?
>
>
>
> >You have no idea of how many of my posts were rejected. Your posts
> >are never rejected. Apples and oranges.
>
> PoorPamela!
Such empathy!
>
> >> >I want nothing to do with Team McAdams and their campaign against Judyth.
> >> >I have made that clear. =A0There is no solution in the Team McAdams camp.
> >> >I want to understand Judyth; Team McAdams wants to destroy her. Can you
> >> >perceive the difference?
>
> >> No. Because there is no "Team McAdams" ... that is your invention. I
>
> >Let's let the readers decide that.
>
> I suppose I should be flattered thatPamelathinks I have a "team."
There is a team.
>
> But in fact, we probably should reject posts where she implies there
> is some nefarious conspiracy against Judyth.
Anyone can read the threads for themself.
>
> >> have no campaign against Judyth .... I have pursued verifying the
> >> claims she makes. That's research into her story. Can you perceive the
> >> difference? Anyone who finds Judyth's story lacking, for whatever
> >> reason, does not mean they are part of some team or some campaign.
> >> People with like interests and like conclusions communicate, comment
> >> on posts suportively, etc all the time. The issue of Judyth's story is
> >> no different. Why should it be?
>
> >You might want to check with McAdams. He seems quite comfortable with the
> >campaign against Judyth and appears to think she deserved it.
>
> If "campaign" means vetting and check her story, she did.
>
> And you hated that!
>
> You had some emotional attachment to her.
>
> You could not *stand* that people didn't believe her.
>
> And you still can't.(12)
False. Strawmen. I don't care what you think about Judyth.
>
> >But what is the objective of a propaganda smear campaign if there is no
> >election? How do you measure success or failure?
>
> You are the one conducting the smear campaign,Pamela.(13)
False. I correct false statements.
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment