(Don't be fooled by those with 'advanced degrees'. That has nothing to do with intelligence, or an ability to reason, as the following example shows. In fact, it seems that those who go chasing after degrees might be trying to counterfeit genius. Just my opinion.)
On Nov 14, 7:51 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011 19:04:57 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 12, 6:05=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 12 Nov 2011 19:02:57 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 4, 10:09=A0pm, "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.vikl...@dataphone.se>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Why don't you tell as about your historical process. That would be ver=
> >y
> >> >> interesting.
>
> >> >I have already done that. =A0You just refuse to acknowledge it.
>
> >> No you haven't. You just talk "process" while bitching about people
> >> who disagree with you.
>
> >I do that in nearly every post. You just don't like it.
>
> Of course I don't like you bitching at people who disagree with you,
> all the while refusing to discuss evidence.
I don't like you bitching at people who disagree with you, all the while refusing to discuss evidence.
>
> >Let me give you an example:
>
> >I say I prefer to keep an open mind.
>
> >You say "Pamela believes".
>
> >I say I prefer to weigh and evaluate information.
>
> >You say "Pamela believes"
>
> You just don't seem to understand that you are talking nonsense.
You just don't seem to understand that you are talking nonsense.
>
> People who really weigh and evaluate information reach conclusions.
> They *believe* those conclusions.
Fallacy. Appeal to authority.
>
> Did you post that Judyth had been forced abroad by "attacks" *without*
> believing it?
I had sympathy for her situation, in part because of the hostile environment generated by you on this board. Are you saying you have not carried on a 10-year extremely negative campaign against Judyth? Should we not *believe* you intended it to have an effect on her life?
>
> I don't believe you did Pamela. I think you believe what you post.
> Are you telling me you post things you *don't* believe?
Your opinion. You are mistaken. You are unable to acknowledge a process different than your belief-system.
It seems in the world of poli-sci a 'belief-system' is mandatory. Propaganda doesn't work very well without one, does it? If people just keep an open mind as best they can and weigh and evaluate the information coming in, rhetorical devices intended to get them to *believe* one thing or *not believe* another don't have as much persuasive power, do they?
>
> >I say I do not believe nor disbelieve witnesses. It is not part of my
> >process.
>
> Then why did you say that Judyth had been forced to leave the U.S. by
> "attacks?"
>
> You didn't believe that? But you posted it?
>
I had sympathy for her plight at that time. The hostile environment on aaj both to her and to me as well as Martin did nothing to dissuade me from considering the possibility that if Team McAdams' going at her with such vengeance might just be the tip of the iceberg.
Do you really believe she hired people to crash into her car? Is the possibility that things were happening to her through the actions of other people so outlandish to you?
>
>
> >> How many posts have you *ever* made that were not attack posts,
> >> Pamela?
>
> >Most of my posts correct the false statements that you and others
> >make. How can that be interpreted as an 'attack'?
>
> Give me an example.
This one. You claim I *believe* Judyth had to flee the US. I provided an explanation of where I was at. You will try to rewrite my reply and hurl the accusation back at me once again, won't you? How many times have you done that in this go-around? Thirty?
>
> You don't correct false statements.
I do what I can.
>
> You believe them!
>
You see? You've done it again. I do not *believe* false statements.
>
> >> >An historian is able to take the same group of facts and argue them
> >> >from two opposing positions. =A0Can you do that?
>
> >> I suppose there are *some* historians who could argue that the
> >> Holocaust never happened.
>
> >You 'suppose? . Why do you believe you have credibility about
> >something you don't know?
>
> I know there are holocaust deniers.
>
> But it's not a virtue to read the historical data that way. It's
> seriously derelict.
>
> As is believing Judyth.
I do not *believe* Judyth. You are attacking me again with a false statement.
>
> >Will you next try to tell me how to play the flute even though you
> >don't know how to do that either?
>
> You may be expert on flute playing. You are not expert in history.
I am published in the field of history with my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. I have had journal articles published on both sides of the Atlantic. I have given two presentations at NID. I have maintained a website on the JFK limo for 13 years at www.in-broad-daylight.com.
I am doing my best to share with you the historical method that I use. You refuse to acknowledge that I am doing so. Then you take potshots at me. That is your choice. I believe you are wrong. Not only am I an 'expert in history', but I believe my upcoming book will change forever the way people really think about the assassination.
>
> >> But that's not a virtue.
>
> >To be able to argue from opposing positions is essential to understanding
> >any historical event.
>
> >This is not an issue of 'virtue', it is part of the process.
>
> You have no process.
False again.
You know perfectly well that I have a process because you gripe and complain every time I discuss it.
Once again, here is a sketch of the historical process I am currently using:
Immerse yourself in a topic. Keep an open mind.
At some point, develop one or more hypotheses relative to the event (basically pro and con).
Weigh and evaluate evidence in reference to each hypothesis.
Take some time to evaluate information that falls through the cracks of either hypothesis.
Tweak and revise hypotheses.
Develop and share an opinion.
Continue to keep an open mind and be willing to add new information and adjust. etc.
>
> You just bitch and whine at people who disbelieve Judyth.
>
I bitch and whine when people don't think for themselves, but are comfortable instead *believing* what an *expert* tells them.
> >Let me give you an example -- how do you know why you believe the
> >positions of the WCR unless you have also looked at them from the opposite
> >position?
>
> But I've read a ton of conspiracy books.
Really? Which ones do you find valuable? I don't recall your saying anything that doesn't equate to "all CTs lie". Am I wrong?
>
> >Surely you don't believe that I, who do not believe the WCR, have not read
> >it, the H+E (in fact own the set as well as having them on CD), and have
> >read and own virtually every WC defender book on the assassination?
>
> BUT YOU HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE WC!
I have not seen any merit in the circular reasoning of the WCR. I don't *believe* or *disbelieve* it per se. I am not persuaded by it.
>
> What happened to your "process" there?
Your strawman, not my process.
>
> Why don't you insist that you "neither believe or disbelieve" the WC?
>
I don't have a *belief* system regarding the assassination. Yet I still keep an open mind. Who knows, I could be wrong.
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
On Nov 14, 7:51 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 14 Nov 2011 19:04:57 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 12, 6:05=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> >> On 12 Nov 2011 19:02:57 -0500, Pamela Brown <pamelaj...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Nov 4, 10:09=A0pm, "Glenn Viklund" <glenn54.vikl...@dataphone.se>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >> Why don't you tell as about your historical process. That would be ver=
> >y
> >> >> interesting.
>
> >> >I have already done that. =A0You just refuse to acknowledge it.
>
> >> No you haven't. You just talk "process" while bitching about people
> >> who disagree with you.
>
> >I do that in nearly every post. You just don't like it.
>
> Of course I don't like you bitching at people who disagree with you,
> all the while refusing to discuss evidence.
I don't like you bitching at people who disagree with you, all the while refusing to discuss evidence.
>
> >Let me give you an example:
>
> >I say I prefer to keep an open mind.
>
> >You say "Pamela believes".
>
> >I say I prefer to weigh and evaluate information.
>
> >You say "Pamela believes"
>
> You just don't seem to understand that you are talking nonsense.
You just don't seem to understand that you are talking nonsense.
>
> People who really weigh and evaluate information reach conclusions.
> They *believe* those conclusions.
Fallacy. Appeal to authority.
>
> Did you post that Judyth had been forced abroad by "attacks" *without*
> believing it?
I had sympathy for her situation, in part because of the hostile environment generated by you on this board. Are you saying you have not carried on a 10-year extremely negative campaign against Judyth? Should we not *believe* you intended it to have an effect on her life?
>
> I don't believe you did Pamela. I think you believe what you post.
> Are you telling me you post things you *don't* believe?
Your opinion. You are mistaken. You are unable to acknowledge a process different than your belief-system.
It seems in the world of poli-sci a 'belief-system' is mandatory. Propaganda doesn't work very well without one, does it? If people just keep an open mind as best they can and weigh and evaluate the information coming in, rhetorical devices intended to get them to *believe* one thing or *not believe* another don't have as much persuasive power, do they?
>
> >I say I do not believe nor disbelieve witnesses. It is not part of my
> >process.
>
> Then why did you say that Judyth had been forced to leave the U.S. by
> "attacks?"
>
> You didn't believe that? But you posted it?
>
I had sympathy for her plight at that time. The hostile environment on aaj both to her and to me as well as Martin did nothing to dissuade me from considering the possibility that if Team McAdams' going at her with such vengeance might just be the tip of the iceberg.
Do you really believe she hired people to crash into her car? Is the possibility that things were happening to her through the actions of other people so outlandish to you?
>
>
> >> How many posts have you *ever* made that were not attack posts,
> >> Pamela?
>
> >Most of my posts correct the false statements that you and others
> >make. How can that be interpreted as an 'attack'?
>
> Give me an example.
This one. You claim I *believe* Judyth had to flee the US. I provided an explanation of where I was at. You will try to rewrite my reply and hurl the accusation back at me once again, won't you? How many times have you done that in this go-around? Thirty?
>
> You don't correct false statements.
I do what I can.
>
> You believe them!
>
You see? You've done it again. I do not *believe* false statements.
>
> >> >An historian is able to take the same group of facts and argue them
> >> >from two opposing positions. =A0Can you do that?
>
> >> I suppose there are *some* historians who could argue that the
> >> Holocaust never happened.
>
> >You 'suppose? . Why do you believe you have credibility about
> >something you don't know?
>
> I know there are holocaust deniers.
>
> But it's not a virtue to read the historical data that way. It's
> seriously derelict.
>
> As is believing Judyth.
I do not *believe* Judyth. You are attacking me again with a false statement.
>
> >Will you next try to tell me how to play the flute even though you
> >don't know how to do that either?
>
> You may be expert on flute playing. You are not expert in history.
I am published in the field of history with my essay "SS-100-X" in CAR CRASH CULTURE. I have had journal articles published on both sides of the Atlantic. I have given two presentations at NID. I have maintained a website on the JFK limo for 13 years at www.in-broad-daylight.com.
I am doing my best to share with you the historical method that I use. You refuse to acknowledge that I am doing so. Then you take potshots at me. That is your choice. I believe you are wrong. Not only am I an 'expert in history', but I believe my upcoming book will change forever the way people really think about the assassination.
>
> >> But that's not a virtue.
>
> >To be able to argue from opposing positions is essential to understanding
> >any historical event.
>
> >This is not an issue of 'virtue', it is part of the process.
>
> You have no process.
False again.
You know perfectly well that I have a process because you gripe and complain every time I discuss it.
Once again, here is a sketch of the historical process I am currently using:
Immerse yourself in a topic. Keep an open mind.
At some point, develop one or more hypotheses relative to the event (basically pro and con).
Weigh and evaluate evidence in reference to each hypothesis.
Take some time to evaluate information that falls through the cracks of either hypothesis.
Tweak and revise hypotheses.
Develop and share an opinion.
Continue to keep an open mind and be willing to add new information and adjust. etc.
>
> You just bitch and whine at people who disbelieve Judyth.
>
I bitch and whine when people don't think for themselves, but are comfortable instead *believing* what an *expert* tells them.
> >Let me give you an example -- how do you know why you believe the
> >positions of the WCR unless you have also looked at them from the opposite
> >position?
>
> But I've read a ton of conspiracy books.
Really? Which ones do you find valuable? I don't recall your saying anything that doesn't equate to "all CTs lie". Am I wrong?
>
> >Surely you don't believe that I, who do not believe the WCR, have not read
> >it, the H+E (in fact own the set as well as having them on CD), and have
> >read and own virtually every WC defender book on the assassination?
>
> BUT YOU HAVE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THE WC!
I have not seen any merit in the circular reasoning of the WCR. I don't *believe* or *disbelieve* it per se. I am not persuaded by it.
>
> What happened to your "process" there?
Your strawman, not my process.
>
> Why don't you insist that you "neither believe or disbelieve" the WC?
>
I don't have a *belief* system regarding the assassination. Yet I still keep an open mind. Who knows, I could be wrong.
Pamela Brown
www.in-broad-daylight.com
No comments:
Post a Comment