From the moment I agreed to keep an open mind to what Judyth had to say until her book was published, McAdams has targeted me. The most telling evidence of this is his refusal to acknowledge my position. Not just then -- even today, 12 years later. McAdams likes to complain about someone other than himself being a 'slow learner'. But the evidence shows that it is he who has not only been *slow* to learn my position, but has, in fact, deliberately and with ill intent refused to do so.
Why would this be the case? I cannot, of course, speak my mind on aaj or my post would be rejected. That is part of the McAdams' experiment -- that he and he alone can chose what is posted to the group or not. So I can't call him a liar perpetrating a fraud on aaj -- but I can speak my mind here, and if that interpretation is what comes to mind after reading my posts, I would say, 'run with it.'
McAdams seems to be thinking he has some sort of 'power' over me -- that by repeating false statements they will then become 'fact' and or cause me to stumble. What they do cause me to do is fight back.
Here is the latest interchange. Following my reply to McAdams inanity I will put him in a time-out. I think 12 years is long enough...
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 4:25:41 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2015 17:18:37 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/18/2015 1:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> > And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
> >> > allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
> >>
> >> Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth.
> >
> >I did not intend to imply that McAdams has himself done research on
> >Judyth. I meant that if he knew to his own satisfaction that she was
> >indeed a fraud and a liar and wanted to make sure he allowed her to
> >demonstrate that to everyone else,
>
>
> But she *had* demonstrated it everybody else, Pamela.
To whom had she demonstrated this? To the choir at aaj? What about the rest of the world?
If you did not consider Judyth a threat, why maintain a website using a draft of a manuscript acquired under the table? Why use a photo without her permission after she complained? Why not update it with information from sources she has authorized, such as her current books? Why not treat her with respect and let her hang herself, as the false Anastasia, Anna Anderson, did?
>
> Except you wouldn't accept that.
What I wouldn't accept was that that dogpiling was sufficient.
>ctored and hounded and tried to shut down discussion of
> Judyth until *you* decided she was a fraud.
False. I had an agreement with Judyth to keep an open mind until her book came out. I still do not label Judyth a fraud. I share my experiences at my Finding Judyth blog and ask that others think things through for themselves.
>
> You couldn't accept that people had the right to express opinions that
> *you* didn't like.
Attempting to use a position of influence to turn aaj posters into attack dogs does not to me equate to *expressing opinions*, imo. If anything, it seems to equate more to intellectual oppression.
>
> Who do you think you are?
An historian testing a process.
>
> >it would behoove him to treat her with
> >the utmost respect, because then she would have nothing to complain about
> >and would effectively hoist herself with her own petard in front of the
> >research community. McAdams would come off smelling like a rose.
> >
>
> It was obvious from almost the first that she was a fraud.
Simply labeling Judyth a liar and a fraud did not stop her moving forward or finding new *believers*. Dogpiling was not an effective strategy imo. Something different was needed. A Wolffschanze, so to speak.
>
> The fact that you took a long time to realize that is not my fault,
> nor the fault of any of her critics.
I kept an open mind from 2003 to 2010 when Judyth's book was published. That was my agreement with her.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/world$20gone$20mad/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4/-eobWoCbrv4J
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
Why would this be the case? I cannot, of course, speak my mind on aaj or my post would be rejected. That is part of the McAdams' experiment -- that he and he alone can chose what is posted to the group or not. So I can't call him a liar perpetrating a fraud on aaj -- but I can speak my mind here, and if that interpretation is what comes to mind after reading my posts, I would say, 'run with it.'
McAdams seems to be thinking he has some sort of 'power' over me -- that by repeating false statements they will then become 'fact' and or cause me to stumble. What they do cause me to do is fight back.
Here is the latest interchange. Following my reply to McAdams inanity I will put him in a time-out. I think 12 years is long enough...
On Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 4:25:41 PM UTC-6, John McAdams wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2015 17:18:37 -0500, Pamela Brown
> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 8:01:27 PM UTC-6, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> >> On 2/18/2015 1:41 PM, Pamela Brown wrote:
> >>
> >> > And how does research on Judyth fit into this? What if McAdams had
> >> > allowed her a really level field? Would she then hoist herself
> >>
> >> Please tell us exactly what research McAdams has ever done on Judyth.
> >
> >I did not intend to imply that McAdams has himself done research on
> >Judyth. I meant that if he knew to his own satisfaction that she was
> >indeed a fraud and a liar and wanted to make sure he allowed her to
> >demonstrate that to everyone else,
>
>
> But she *had* demonstrated it everybody else, Pamela.
To whom had she demonstrated this? To the choir at aaj? What about the rest of the world?
If you did not consider Judyth a threat, why maintain a website using a draft of a manuscript acquired under the table? Why use a photo without her permission after she complained? Why not update it with information from sources she has authorized, such as her current books? Why not treat her with respect and let her hang herself, as the false Anastasia, Anna Anderson, did?
>
> Except you wouldn't accept that.
What I wouldn't accept was that that dogpiling was sufficient.
>ctored and hounded and tried to shut down discussion of
> Judyth until *you* decided she was a fraud.
False. I had an agreement with Judyth to keep an open mind until her book came out. I still do not label Judyth a fraud. I share my experiences at my Finding Judyth blog and ask that others think things through for themselves.
>
> You couldn't accept that people had the right to express opinions that
> *you* didn't like.
Attempting to use a position of influence to turn aaj posters into attack dogs does not to me equate to *expressing opinions*, imo. If anything, it seems to equate more to intellectual oppression.
>
> Who do you think you are?
An historian testing a process.
>
> >it would behoove him to treat her with
> >the utmost respect, because then she would have nothing to complain about
> >and would effectively hoist herself with her own petard in front of the
> >research community. McAdams would come off smelling like a rose.
> >
>
> It was obvious from almost the first that she was a fraud.
Simply labeling Judyth a liar and a fraud did not stop her moving forward or finding new *believers*. Dogpiling was not an effective strategy imo. Something different was needed. A Wolffschanze, so to speak.
>
> The fact that you took a long time to realize that is not my fault,
> nor the fault of any of her critics.
I kept an open mind from 2003 to 2010 when Judyth's book was published. That was my agreement with her.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/alt.assassination.jfk/world$20gone$20mad/alt.assassination.jfk/mzA_VLgwfG4/-eobWoCbrv4J
Pamela Brown
findingjudyth.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment