Another attack on Laura in an unexpected place- Amazon Reviews!

[Breton]

I was looking at some of Laura's reviews on Amazon.com when I noticed that on Dec 18, 2008 someone had been adding an attacking, slanderous kind of comment to most of her reviews.

Jay C. Weidner says:
Laura Knight Jadczyk is a lousy researcher and a terrible writer. Laura Knight Jadczyk took $250,000 in a false house raffle and took the money and started her own vanity press called Red Pill. No respectable publisher would touch her stuff. She channels aliens from Cassiopaea which is where she claims she gets her alchemical knowledge. Actually she reads other people's books and then 'channels' the material thereby preventing anyone from saying she plagiarized the material. pretty clever actually. I would stay away from anything that she has to do with. She is currently being sued for defamation by a man in Oregon. She said that he was an agent for the government and was running a "cointelpro" operation. She has, so far, given no evidence for these very serious charges. So I guess the guy is suing her. Good. I hope he wins.

He is not commenting on the review at all, just casually, and oh so transparently, attacking the person, he has a grudge against. Further, he is spouting lies that are easily exposed with little effort!

So sad. And to think, if it really is Weidner, I remember coming across some of his writings before finding SOTT, and I thought at that time he had class and intelligence. (I also had very little discernment at that time.)

Ironically, if he had waited a just little longer he would have seen that SOTT won its case!

I thought of Castaneda's writings, and if I remember correctly, there is this concept that warriors do not have to fight petty tyrants directly: they end up shooting themselves in the foot in the end.

FYI: Laura has about 71 reviews and you can find this comment added to quite a few of them I think:

_http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A2VMVTDYQDA6L8/ref=cr_cm_rdp_pdp_see_all?ie=UTF8&sort%5Fby=MostRecentReview

 

[anart]

The incessantly repeated lies aren't even the most pathetic part - the fact that he wrote this (assuming it is Weidner and not someone using his name, which is always possible on the internet) - almost exactly as the judge was ruling in favor of Laura is just hilarious. These guys really don't know how to not shoot themselves in the foot. The more trash they write, the more attention Laura gets - what buffoons.

I bet it wasn't a happy day in his world when he read about the ruling -

 

[domi]

I was looking at some of Laura's reviews on Amazon.com when I noticed that on Dec 18, 2008 someone had been adding an attacking, slanderous kind of comment to most of her reviews.

There is a "report abuse" button that I just used because this commentary has obviously nothing to do with the product that is being reviewed and is therefor noise/spam.

 

[Franco]

I reported it for abuse also, sad when you have nothing better to do than troll an online retailer.

 

[Laura]

It really is bizarre to observe the disconnect between Weidner when he's "writing an article" and this childish sandbox bully/whiner personality. One sometimes wonders if he suffers from multiple personality (DID) and just doesn't have any control over that obnoxious brat personality that keeps coming out and making him look stupid.

Whatever it is, it definitely detracts from any serious consideration of his ideas and writings.

 

[domi]

It really is bizarre to observe the disconnect between Weidner when he's "writing an article" and this childish sandbox bully/whiner personality. One sometimes wonders if he suffers from multiple personality (DID) and just doesn't have any control over that obnoxious brat personality that keeps coming out and making him look stupid.

It's interesting you write this because I went on an evening walk a few hours ago and listened to the Organic Portal and Psychopathy podcast again and towards the end of it where you talk about how as a society we should figure out how to maximize the potential of a person, I was thinking about this Weidner character and I felt like just telling him to just let go of whatever his beef is, get over it and be the best he can be, whatever that is.

Don't you think there is some sort of low self-esteem and envy that he feels with respect to you? Because you're neither a lousy researcher nor a terrible writer. Prolific writer, yes

D.

 

[purplehaze]

Its so easy to spot an attacker like that because the WAY they say things and WHAT they say don't rise far above 7th grade, at best.

To make sweeping statements about Laura like that is intellectually dishonest.

 

[Azur]

Its so easy to spot an attacker like that because the WAY they say things and WHAT they say don't rise far above 7th grade, at best.

To make sweeping statements about Laura like that is intellectually dishonest.

Well, the types that try to control don't bother with community oriented ideals like intellectual honesty, they exploit the high suggestibility of people. From there you can see why they sound like 7th graders, when it suits them.

Have you never noticed this before? I'm sorry but your last statement above strikes me as incredibly naive.

 

[Breton]

I apologize to Azur if I in this next posting I come across as being confrontational (I do not intend to, but you know how plain text is , you cannot see my body language that would show my friendliness), but I don't understand the purpose of writing that evaluative statement "I'm sorry but your last statement above strikes me as incredibly naive" in your last posting to purplehaze.

a) I wanted to think that on this forum it is not a crime or offence to either be naive, or just sound naive (for the purposes of pointing out something to less experienced readers of the forum for example). Maybe I am wrong on that?
b) Everyone of us is naive in some way or another about something, or else we would not be needing to learn lessons. I expect that we are at different points on the learning curve.
c) To beings that are in 4D and higher I think we might suggest that everyone here in 3D is incredibly naive, even if they are Buddha or Socrates.

Anyways I expect to make a lot of comments on this forum in the future that will probably strike a lot of more experienced and knowledgeable people as "incredibly naive", and I doubt I am going to apologize for it. As long as my comments are made in good faith to share thoughts for the purpose of learning and they are not to intentionally waste anyone's time, of course.

 

[Laura]

I don't think that saying "To make sweeping statements about ... is intellectually dishonest" is naive; it's a statement of fact. But then, I am also aware of Purplehaze's extensive knowledge and experience with pathology and that he/she did not choose to go into that aspect of it; rather to simply state the obvious that would apply to anyone whether pathological or not.

 

[Saman]

Its so easy to spot an attacker like that because the WAY they say things and WHAT they say don't rise far above 7th grade, at best.

To make sweeping statements about Laura like that is intellectually dishonest.

Well, the types that try to control don't bother with community oriented ideals like intellectual honesty, they exploit the high suggestibility of people. From there you can see why they sound like 7th graders, when it suits them.

Have you never noticed this before? I'm sorry but your last statement above strikes me as incredibly naive.

Perhaps I am also currently in a naive state of mind for asking the following question, but regardless of this possibility, Azur, can you please elaborate a bit on how you've seemingly concluded with certainty that Purplehaze is not already aware of the fact that such attackers can sound like 7th graders when it suits them? You see, I've read what Purplhaze has said a few times over and over, and I still can not see how you came to such a certain conclusion based on what he has said in the quote above...

He said "the WAY they say things and WHAT they say don't rise far above 7th grade, at best." Just from this, I ponder if there is enough data to really conclude with logical certainty that he is or is not already aware of what you've aforementioned in your reply to him? It's just that it appears to me that he was simply making an observation of how such attackers appear to him to due to their malicious and dishonest reviews: like a lying and intellectually insensible spoiled brat, which I don't think is the same as making a statement that they actuality have in reality the intellect of a dishonest 7th grader.

However, I feel that I am uncertain of my own observations on this matter. Perhaps my reading instrument is still off the mark. Just my 2 cents, or so I think.

 

[purplehaze]

Thanks Laura.

Guess that our comment was in keeping with Joann Ashmun's assertion that narcissists, for instance, are "six." Pathologicals do seem to have a very low E.Q. as evidenced, in our experience -- by their tantruming when exposed.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/six.html

And it is intellectually dishonest. Come on, can't the reviewer be specific rather than making nasty generalizations?

I don't think that saying "To make sweeping statements about ... is intellectually dishonest" is naive; it's a statement of fact. But then, I am also aware of Purplehaze's extensive knowledge and experience with pathology and that he/she did not choose to go into that aspect of it; rather to simply state the obvious that would apply to anyone whether pathological or not.

 

[Breton]

Thanks purplehaze, I found that article you shared useful.

It is another angle for me to consider: that some people may not have developed emotionally beyond 6 years of age, and yet have developed in other ways. This angle can be useful in understanding some of the dynamics of relationships that we encounter.

Coming across this guy has been an interesting lesson for me. I came across him JUST before finding the work at SOTT. I saw the difference between real Truth seekers and someone like him very sharply. Being a newbie at truth seeking, I needed this kind of contrast, or juxtaposition at that time. Perhaps he is useful to us in showing us other things like narcissism, multiple personalities... or whatever. I see from Laura's example in her writings that she has been able to learn a lot from encountering people like him.

This is so interesting: lessons, lessons, everywhere!

 

[Rabelais]

In the event that no one noticed, Weidner posted that same comment to every one of Laura's Amazon reviews. Absolutely no relationship to the actual review, just venom with the intellectual depth of a birdbath.

 

[mamadrama]

Guess that our comment was in keeping with Joann Ashmun's assertion that narcissists, for instance, are "six." Pathologicals do seem to have a very low E.Q. as evidenced, in our experience -- by their tantruming when exposed.

http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/six.html

Thanks for bringing up this point and the link, purplehaze. My experience with my narcissistic ex confirms (at least for me anyway) the arrested emotional development of this type of person. IMHO, the author of this article was a little too warm and fuzzy about this aspect of the narcissist. I suspect she has not had to tangle with one over any matter of consequence.