Fintan Dunne & Dan Butler - Interview: psychopathy

[Laura]

Okay, so we have a controversy over ESI’s scientific method. If it is indeed a fact, let’s presume for right now, that ESI’s report was deliberately skewed…then, to me, that poses a problem.

Certainly. But we can equally well assume that the report was not deliberately skewed and wait for a good analysis by those competent to analyze the issue before we start firing the heavy artillery.

Especially since the same guy who founded an organization that is supposedly trying to work against voter fraud…is committing fraud himself.

In what sense? Are you firing the artillery without waiting for more data?

And I’m not sure now, but I think that after the Election Archive pdf came out, ESI came out publicly and modified their original report.

Nothing terribly unusual about that. Most scientific papers have what is called "errata." No matter how careful you try to be, errors always sneak in. It's the human condition. I'm constantly fixing stuff when other people find errors in my work. I appreciate it when they point them out to me. I work as hard as I can to minimize errors, but when you research and write a lot - a LOT - you tend to get "blind spots." You can read the same stuff over and over again with a glaring error and simply not see it. In fact, you want to never see the work again and threaten gross bodily harm to anyone who asks you to read it again! (Only slightly joking here! I can tell you that after I had been through Secret History about a dozen times, I was ready to throw the computer out the window!) And there are STILL errors in there even after multiple proof readings!

So, just because someone fixes and error doesn't mean they are a bad guy!

Also, I’ve notice that the home page of ESI has changed since I first visited it a couple of weeks ago when all hell broke loose over at BFN. The home page of ESI used to treat the newcomer with a nice little hello from Steven Hertzberg. I wonder why that isn’t there anymore?

You may be reading something into something that isn't there. There could be all kinds of ordinary reasons why the site is changed.

Another thing. As I’m looking at the site now, would you trust anyone that says the following?

ESI Memorandum to Ohio Election Officials
State: OH County: Cuyahoga
Author(s): Steven Hertzberg Date: 08-22-2006

Summary: n April 2006, prior to the May 2 primary, the Cuyahoga County Commission contracted with the Election Science Institute (ESI) to conduct a comprehensive review of how their new voting system actually worked on an election day. ESI’s report, including the performance of the Diebold Accuvote TSX voting system, was released by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. Since then, Diebold circulated a response to the report, to which ESI has responded (see attached). ESI understands that Ohio’s election officials have been under intense scrutiny and that the challenges of implementing both HAVA and House Bill No. 3 are enormous. ESI had the privilege of working with several Ohio county election officials on this report. We were impressed by their professionalism and commitment to the integrity of the elections process. For this reason, we are concerned that the findings of this report have been misinterpreted and misreported. First and foremost, the ESI report is not an attack on the Diebold Accuvote TSX system. Indeed, the report findings include very positive reviews of the system from voters and booth workers.

Last time I checked Diebold was pretty shady. So what’s the deal (and I didn’t exactly check very hard, so…I’m open to answers)?

Additionally, if Steven Hertzberg is working so hard to defend voter fraud (as in allowing it to happen), then what the hell is he doing working with the Ron Paul campaign?!

That’s a red flag for me, I’m sorry. Can’t get any redder or flaggy than that!

So, those are my concerns.

Hope it helped.


Actually, one more thing I think is worth mentioning. When Steven Hertzberg’s cover was blown at BFN (his forum alias was “navari”), a lot of shady deletions and history erasures occurred over the WWW. If you guys are interested, I highly suggest going through that thread and seeing what happened. But for the lazier, I’ll give you an example:

Fintan Dunne has a youtube page. And when Steven Hertzberg’s cover was blown at BFN, someone noticed that the only subscriber to Fintan’s youtube page was Steven Hertzberg himself! Additionally, Steven Hertzberg also had his own youtube page with PLENTY of videos and subscribers. So, what happens to all this when a BFN forum member notices the youtube connection and makes a post about it? Yup, you guessed it, Fintan no longer had his single subscriber and “This account is closed” (referring to Steven Hertzberg’s youtube account). I wonder what all those subscribers to Steven's youtube page must be thinking about that?

So I don’t know. Seems pretty ill-intentioned to me; not very STO and quite possibly very pathocratic. Why don’t you tell me what you think of all this. Isn’t it shady to you?

Again, there could be any number of reasons for the little bit you have mentioned above. The world is not black and white. There is good, there is evil, and there is the specific situation that determines which is which.

Let me try to describe some general principles about this sort of thing by talking about specific cases.

One example would be Fintan Dunne himself. When I first heard that he was accusing everybody and his brother of being CIA, including a few people I was convinced were NOT, that struck me as a big red flag (as you put it.) At that point, we had the podcast discussion and basically blew Fintan off.

But then, later, as things turned out, we noted that Fintan actually seemed to grok Ponerology and to be interested in helping other people to "get it." That put a whole other slant on Fintan. Because, my experience is that only people who can sort of "see inside" things really get it. You have to have had certain experiences to really understand it. And, if you have had those experiences, it pretty much means you are not a psychopath yourself.

But then, of course, there was the case of the guy who I was pretty certain was a psychopath who wanted to "take over" the whole psychopathy issue and promote it exactly the wrong way. So, with that in mind, I decided to just re-open the door regarding Fintan and wait for more data.

Another point is: two of the people Fintan was accusing of being CIA - who I was sure were not - were unable to "grok" Ponerology at all. That doesn't mean they are agents or psychopaths, it just means they have not had certain eye-opening experiences that would bring immediate recognition.

Still a third person Fintan accused of being CIA (or something similar), who I was sure was not, I later decided could very well be an agent, though an unconscious one.

So nothing about that whole situation is cut and dried; nothing is as it seems.

Let's take another case that landed in my email box the other day. It is an exchange between Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk and Theologian/prof. David Ray Griffin re Chomsky, Palast, et al. I'll quote the actual emails:

Dear 9-11 truth activists,

Given that the attached exchange between DRG and me took place in a group
e-mail, i feel that it was conducted in a sufficiently public forum to make
this a public conversation. Consequently, i do not feel that sharing this
with a wider audience is in violation of any implied trust of
confidentiality.

For truth,

Galen
______________________________________

> Re: Gatekeepers of the Left
>
> Dear Galen,
>
> Please excuse my delay in responding. I delayed partly because I¹ve been busy
> with a new project, but also partly because I knew I could not respond
> honestly without taking strong exception to what you suggest.
>
> Although I do not like this practice of holding conversations in group
> emails, I have copied all the people you did, because I see that your letter
> has generated considerable discussion.
>
> You and I, as you know, share similar views on many matters. But I do not
> share you view on the central point of your email.
>
> That is, when you say that people such as Noam Chomsky, George Lakoff, Greg
> Palast, Norman Solomon, and Jon Stewart do not share the ³virtues of honesty
> and good-faith,² I see no reason to agree. As a wise old saying puts it,
> people of good will can differ on important issues. The people you single out,
> moreover, have done an enormous amount, as you recognize, to educate people
> about the nefarious policies of our government.
>
> I am, of course, disappointed that they have not added their important voices
> to the 9/11 truth movement. In some cases, at least, it appears that they have
> simply refused to examine the evidence---a fault for which they have
> excoriated other people on other issues. And at least in some cases, they have
> refused even to answer letters about the evidence.
>
> But I myself have never used the term, ³gatekeepers of the left.² You add the
> qualification that they may not be ³conscious of their role.² But the term
> itself tends to suggest consciousness of the role, and I would certainly not
> want to make that imputation about any of these people. I would like to see
> this term disappear.
>
> You ask what these people have in common and point out that they are Jewish.
> That is true. But there are many other people who have great influence in the
> media but have failed to challenge the official story, such as Bill Moyers,
> Walter Cronkite, Tom Brokaw, Brian Williams, Charlie Gibson, Diane Sawyer, and
> on and on. There are also some very influential Jewish thinkers, such as
> Richard Falk, Howard Zinn, and Ed Asner, who have endorsed the 9/11 truth
> movement¹s call for a new investigation. So I fail to see how any reasonable
> causal inference can be drawn.
>
> You especially go beyond the evidence, and actually indulge in the slander to
> which you object, when you imply that Greg Palast¹s unfair comments about
> Steven Jones were motivated by the desire to protect 9/11 perpetrators within
> the USG who are aligned with Israel. (I also would not make this charge about
> Cockburn for his attacks on me.) Who has been a more fearless speaker of
> unpopular truths than Greg Palast? Who has more clearly demonstrated that he
> speaks what he believes to be the truth, not what he thinks will be popular
> with this group or that? In any case, whatever your answer be to those
> questions, I would be surprised to learn that you had sufficient, if any,
> evidence for your extremely serious charge against him. If not, and since you
> wrote this in a public letter, I¹m afraid that, whatever happens between him
> and Steven Jones, you owe Greg Palast an apology.
>
> I, like you, was also surprised that he would speak with such confidence on
> Lenny¹s INN program about the destruction of the WTC. He clearly spoke with
> confidence not supported by familiarity with the relevant evidence. But that
> is a failing to be remedied by education, not castigation. Although I have not
> read all the correspondence generated by your letter, I found helpful the
> interventions by Dan Drasin and Steve Bhaerman, who wrote along these lines.
> (As you see, we¹re back to the basic issue: I believe Greg Palast to be, and
> certainly have no reason to deny, that he is a person of ³honesty and good
> faith.² From what I know, in fact, he has manifested these virtues, along with
> courage, to an exemplary degree.)
>
>
> Let me add one more point: As you know, I have focused on showing the reasons
> why the official account of 9/11 is unworthy of belief, rather than on trying
> to develop a complete alternative account of what really happened. This
> applies to the question of who was ultimately behind the operation. Some of
> the ones pretty directly involved, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers, are
> obvious, as the operation simply could not have occurred without their heavy
> involvement. But beyond the operational level, any speculations as to the main
> players behind the scene are just that, speculations. And it¹s when people get
> attached to their particular speculations about this or that aspect of the
> operation that divisions are created. So I keep urging the movement to focus,
> in our public discussions especially, on the points on which there is virtual
> unanimity, because these are more than sufficient to show the falsity of the
> official account. And that is all that is needed at this stage to convince
> people of the need for a truly independent investigation. And that is THE task
> at this time.
>
> You asked for my opinion. This is it.
>
> Yours truly,
>
> David

Galen¹s reply:

Dear David,

I have been extremely busy lately and am just now finding the time to
respond to your attached e-mail. I've pondered your reply to my e-mail for
several days and feel compelled to answer thusly.

The great social activist, Doctor Martin Luther King, once said, "A time
comes when silence is betrayal". I understand this sentiment and i concur
wholeheartedly. As we approach the six-year anniversary of the treasonous,
mass murder of 9-11, i believe that time has come when silence about the
physical impossibility of the USG's outlandish Official Conspiracy Theory
(OCT) is indeed betrayal.

But wait, "heroes of the left" like Noam Chomsky, Greg Palast, Norman
Solomon, and Alexander Cockburn have not been silent about 9-11, they've
actually made ludicrous statements in support of the OCT that are not
factual. In other words, they've all lied very specifically about what did
and what did not happen on 9-11. Well, if silence is betrayal at some
point, what is vocal, adamant, cocksure defense of a blatant lie like the
9-11 OCT? It has to be something much worse than betrayal, does it not?

You claim that, in your opinion, all of these people i mentioned as
"gatekeepers" are indeed honest people in good faith. To this i can only
say that you and i must have very different standards by which we measure
such things. Just because they all have done something of value for causes
which we also champion in no way invalidates my point. I acknowledged this
in my original e-mail. This is, in fact, one important attribute of a
gatekeeper. If these people had no "following", no solid, incontrovertible
body of work, they could not possibly be effective gatekeepers. So if your
claim, which it seems to be, is that these people i mentioned are honest
simply because they've done valuable work, you're ignoring the dangerous,
poisonous tree for the benign, or even benevolent, forest.

Furthermore, your reply implies that i am anti-Jew. Quite frankly, i'm
surprised that you would stoop to such a low level. I did not say that all
gatekeepers are Jewish, nor did i even hint that i feel that all Jews are
bad... many of my very best friends are members of said tribe, i view people
first and foremost as fellow human beings, not as a this or a that. There
are clearly gatekeepers who are not Jewish and there are most certainly many
good honest people supporting the truth of 9-11 who are Jewish. I
intentionally chose these Jewish gatekeepers to make my point that anyone
who dares to say anything critical of Zionism or the state of Israel will
promptly be labeled "anti-Semitic". Lo and behold, your innuendo that i'm
against all Jews proves my point!

Still further, you bemoan the very concept of "gatekeeper". This is very
strange to me coming from a man who has distinguished himself as a clear,
unbiased voice in the 9-11 Truth Movement. It's the old maxim revisited:
If it walks like a duck and quakes like a duck, it might very well be a
duck. If someone is acting like a gatekeeper, maybe they are.

As far as your contention that i owe Greg Palast an apology, i'll make a
deal with you, David: if Palast suddenly comes to his senses and starts
promoting 9-11 truth rather than being a shrill shill for the outright lie
that is the OCT, i'll apologize to him post haste; if, on the other hand,
Palast continues his antics and the next 9-11 visits our shores, i think
that it is you who owes me an apology. Do we have a deal?

When i was at HP, one of our marketing slogans was: When performance is
measured by results. By being critical of these people that i name as
gatekeepers i'm applying this simple test. I'm judging them and their
performance as allies to the cause of truth and justice by the results of
their denial of the truth of 9-11. If all of the gatekeepers, both "left"
and "right", were to suddenly open the gates they guard to the truth of
9-11, the perpetrators of this heinous crime would quickly be brought to
justice; but as long as people like Noam Chomsky and Greg Palast continue to
spout absurdities and balderdash about this pivotal event in our history, we
may see another 9-11 and martial law in the not too distant future.

Is it worth ruffling a few feathers to prevent the next 9-11? I dare say,
"yes".

For truth,

Dennis "galen" Mitrzyk

Now, certainly, most of us are familiar with the work of Greg Palast and Noam Chomsky... we have all laughed heartily at the wit and humor of Jon Stewart.

But yet, we wonder why these individuals - and others - are curiously resistant to acknowledging the awful truth about 9/11. After all, most of us can see that any person of average intelligence should be aware of the truth about 9/11. So what's wrong with these "notable intellects"?

Palast, Chomsky, Stewart, and others, aren't stupid. They've demonstrated great insight, intelligence, and the ability to cut through the nonsense and get to the "meat of the matter" on so many subjects.

What's the hold-up here?

Well, one individual posting to this exchange wrote back the following:

I think the problem lies with human nature... As one digs into the flesh of
corruption, it is a natural response to begin to believe you have it "figured
out". Palast in particular, is not highly objective or neutral in his
delivery of his powerful and valuable information --he consistently mixes
it with his own "analysis" (for lack of a better term) and often blurs the
lines -- something Dr. Griffin has never done. With time, the "analysis"
can replace one's view of reality, and while for the most part true and
dramatically different than the popular view, it can obscure one form other
truths that might just seem too far fetched for such refined "Realism".

I think Palast is simply caught up with a belief system that buys into the
idea the administration is incompetent, and not capable of pulling off such
a feat. And being Jewish he may react to the suggestion that Israel is
involved and DOES have the expertise to pull it off. I am married to a
Jewish woman, and one of the smartest people I know, and yet she STILL
reacts to anything said against Israel as against "Jews" until I stipulate
the difference. It's just automatic, and the same way with many Jews. They
simply can't help it, it's been programed in since childhood.

John Stewart business is mainstream politics. He may very well have
mentioned having 9/11 authors like Dr. Griffin on the show etc. only to be
summarily shut down by his producers. We don't know the truth and there are
many possibilities besides the conclusion he is a Gatekeeper. That kind of
logic got many innocent "elite" killed after various "peoples' (Ie
ignorants') revolutions.

Remember, until you saw the real evidence through an underground
source, you thought it preposterous, too. These guys are not on our
mailing lists and they are VERY busy with what THEY believe is true and
needs telling.

I guess that being said, I simply take issue with the suggestion that they
are intentionally repressing information they know to be true. Do you filter
the things you forward to your list? Would you send out a piece on there
being no planes at the WTC? It's really the same thing. I understand your
reasoning that it damages the movement, and I agree, but it is the same
thing. They may feel that as speculative as it is (in their minds) and so
controversial, it might damage their credibility, credibility and perceived
objectivity that's necessary for them to continue to do the good work they
do. People know Rosie's a loose cannon. But not John Stewart, he's the voice
of reason...

I personally do not think any of them actually know the OCT is BS. I know
some extremely "intelligent", highly-educated people who simply cannot
entertain even the slightest "Conspiracy talk" without a veritable tirade.
They are cursed with the only thing worse than knowing too little, namely
thinking they know too much. I think that may be Palast's weakness.

Or guys like Stewart may have been threatened with Dan Rathers' fate.
Remember when you dropped out and the reasons why? Think about the kind of
risk they would incur with that public a profile... You see Rosie O'Donnel
working anywhere today? Not live again, that I can guarantee. And Stewart
has small kids.

Has anyone in the movement actually tried seriously to contact any of them?
And frankly, if Howard Zinn is on board, who cares about Chomsky? Howard
Zinn changed my life. I would find it almost impossible to believe he would
not see the lie in 9/11. Chomsky, on the other hand is much like Palast. He
thinks he has it all figured out... Let us not also fall to the same trap on
the other side of the issue...

Then, of course, there is the problem of people like Paul Craig Roberts who can see so much, but doesn't seem to grok the fact that NOW is the time to try to wake people up to the problem of Ponerology... only when it is live and in your face will people be able to really understand it, and there is no reason whatsoever to shove it under the rug and relegate it to "the professionals," especially if you can figure out that most of the "professionals" are part of the problem!

Well, it got more interesting. Another person responded to the last post above with the following:

Re: Gatekeepers of the Left
"That is, when you say that people such as Noam Chomsky, George
Lakoff, Greg Palast, Norman Solomon, and Jon Stewart do not share the
"virtues of honesty and good-faith," I see no reason to agree. As a
wise old saying puts it, people of good will can differ on important
issues. The people you single out, moreover, have done an enormous
amount, as you recognize, to educate people about the nefarious
policies of our government."

That's what a reasonable person might say. I would have said it myself
a few years ago. Jeeze--I even said it lately regarding this grifter I
mentioned. Reasonable people grant respect to those that they think
are presenting some truth. Hence a normal person will then stand up
for these personalities and do their diplomacy for them. As for the
particular names above, I never read much Lakoff or Solomon, but I
followed Chomsky since I heard him speak about the Iran/Contra affair
at the U in Boulder Colorado in 1987. They played his long winded
speeches on the radio in Santa Fe New Mexico during 2002-2004, and I
suppose they still do.

But during 2003 while listening to Chomsky on Sunday drives in my car,
his old 'Pax Americana' spiel about the world's problems all coming
from that small coterie in Washington DC was beginning to ring hollow.
All about oil, hegemony for the United States...Chomsky's 'rap' which
played so convincingly during the 1980's was sounding very dissonant
with current events. Prominently, it doesn't account for all countries
in the world simultaneously buying into the 'war on terror' paradigm,
all of them instantly enacting their own versions of the 'PATRIOT' Act
pretty much verbatim, and all the rest of that. Anybody with a lick
of sense can see what's really been going on since 2001...so c'mon
Noam, give your university audiences some credit and at least come up
with some new material. The 'Imperial' United States paradigm doesn't
hold up when the frontmen in DC are obviously dissolving the US as a
nation. Many of them have already moved to Dubai or China.

I chuckled when I saw Jon Stewart mentioned in the same breath with
these other names as having "done an enormous amount, as you
recognize, to educate people about the nefarious policies of our
government." The man's a professional actor and comedian who presents
material written by teams of script writers. His show is on
television, which should tell us something. And it's a heavily
promoted show and immensely popular in America. I've watched it with
people, and seen that the effect isn't educational. What it does is
lampoon front men and grim political realities and make them seem funny
and harmless. Bottom line is, it makes middle class folks feel
comfortable, like 'everything's really okay'. Like all this is NORMAL
or something. The medium is the message--and the message of the Daily
Show is to 'don't worry, be happy'. Vote the bums out.

I'm old enough to remember when the Great Depression era people were
vital. They knew NEVER to trust either a politician or 'star' at face
value. They understood that media image is manipulated. They'd lived
through an era when corruption had to be pushed back through strikes
and not 'going along'.

I encourage anyone I know to not fall for the cult of personality that
puts these professional Sophists on stage, both the 'bad guys' people
are supposed to 'love to hate' - and the 'good guys'.

How is it that images of personalities, projected through strips of celluloid
or cathode tube photons came to carry more 'credibility' than friends, family and
colleagues who share our own experiences?

The old common sense was
that you'd trust your neighbors opinion more than some vetted
politician or 'star' in the simple logic that whatever the neighbor
will suffer or prosper right along with you from the results of what
the public accepts or rejects.

People that turn up through any form of media, where their persona
seems to be crucial to their 'message' should be suspect to begin
with.

We've seen over and over that these 'celebrities' have a high
ratio of scandals that eventually come out than their audience does.
That goes back to the Protocol on control of the opposition press and
media.

Narcissists are often sexually deviant - hence power coteries
who spare no expense setting up media outlets logically prefer the
profile of hacks who crave the unmerited fame and fortune the
limelight can give them. The deviancy is a useful since deviants have
already mastered leading double lives, are highly compartmentalized,
and can lie without blinking. Last bit is, such a type is blackmailed
or destroyed at will through simple exposure.

I learned the flip side of that is that same power is adept at
protecting it's 'tools' secrets. Quick case in point: I worked at the
Arkansas Gazette during Clinton's first term as governor. That he
used a team of procurers to connive campaign groupies into his 'high
nooner' sex encounters at the Camelot Hotel and Convention Center was
matter of fact inside the paper. We even knew the full details of
these encounters (Clinton was a calculating power rapist who keeps his
suit on and only unzipped his fly for the three minute 'favor'). The
public knows this now because it was the safest 'exposure' of Clinton
to chase middle America to Bush. As for Clinton, he couldn't care
less what the public think of him. What kind of man is it who's sexual
obsession/compulsion involves humiliating silly young women attracted
to power? A psychopath.

And of all the things that Clinton could have been investigated over -
why he allowed the Waco massacre for just one - they chose this. And
since 2004 they've shown us Clinton joined at the hip with GHW Bush
livin' large. 'Flaunting it' is another trait of power rapists.

I think people understood better back in the fifties how the cult of personality
works - it's the perfect mask.

So, as you see, we have several different views on the subject already. How to sort it all out?

Well, we can't do much without data. We need more data and we need GOOD data, not just opinions.

It was my "off the top of my head" opinion that Fintan Dunne must be an "agent" because he was labeling people as agents that I was sure - based on all the data I had at that moment - were not. I haven't change my opinion about two of them, but I have gotten more data which suggests to me that, no, they aren't agents, but they don't have a clue, either. The third one, I have changed my assessment: I think he's an agent, but an unconscious one.

I'm sorry that I jumped the gun and blew off Fintan and Henry wrote to apologize to him on behalf of all of us, but he hasn't seen fit to respond. So, maybe he IS an "agent." Who knows? We need more data - long term data. And believe me, all the little things you are mentioning above can be spun and twisted and mis-interpreted.

I think we ought to all take a deep breath, take our time about those we cannot be sure of, and those we CAN be sure of because of clear and evident deviant behavior (and there's plenty of them around, believe me!), we need to send packing asap.

After all, it is the great talent of the psychopath to turn normies against each other and keep them at each other's throats while the deviants destroy our lives and our world.

And it is working.

 

[henry]

The first article is up:

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/190/197/

 

[Laura]

The first article is up:

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/190/197/

Excellent article! Very good introductory piece!

It's just really too bad that Fintan Dunne is choosing not to be a part of the growing network of people who are seeing the problem of the psychopath and overcoming the manipulations. Like I said, we have to get over ourselves. As I wrote in "Official Culture":

It is all too easy to fall under the spell of the charismatic psychopath. There are many who do the psychopath's bidding without realizing that they have been subtly and cleverly controlled. They can even be manipulated to perform criminal acts, or acts of sabotage against another - innocent - person on behalf of the psychopath. Very often, when this is realized by the victim, that they have caused suffering in innocent people at the behest of a liar, again they prefer to deny this than to face up to the truth of their own perfidy and gullibility.

It strikes me that if Fintan does NOT realize that he, himself, may have fallen under the psychopathic influence a time or two, that he could be wrong, that he could be manipulated, that he needs to learn about his inner states and what makes him susceptible to psychopathic manipulation, then he really hasn't "grokked" Ponerology at all and is effectively an "agent" even if he isn't one consciously or intentionally. Again, see "Arlington Road" for a really good example of how a sincere, well-meaning person who has no control over his emotions can be vectored and become a "Useful Idiot."

 

[yoyos]

What strikes me as something weird is that I have all these concerns about ESI…and you folks don’t. Actually, it seems like you folks are trying to defend ESI. I don’t know why that would be. This prospect frightens me actually.

Don’t I read, on a regular basis, here at SOTT that Diebold is ‘bad’? How am I supposed to reconcile that fact, with the fact that you have not a single issue/concern working with an organization that is PROMOTING Diebold?! That’s a little bit of a conflict of interest from my POV. I'm curious to know how many more justifications can be thought of to justify working with Steven?

If you want to work with the guy so you can spread your material around, then fine; good to go. Do it up. I agree with that actually. BUT, why wouldn’t you folks take someone else’s concerns seriously? I believe that I have experienced 1st hand

clear and evident deviant behavior

from Steven Hertzberg. There is no way that you are going to convince me otherwise, well…that is unless you do have something extremely convincing to clue me in on. Laura, those emails you shared are nice; a good example and all, but I don’t believe I’m confused over matters of perception in this case.

I know what I saw and experienced with my own two eyes over at BFN. “Normal” people wouldn’t behave like Steven Hertzberg did when he was exposed over at BFN. If he believed in STO, he would have displayed the corresponding human characteristics. Unfortunately, the only type of behavior I experienced (1st hand don’t forget) was STS. The whole thing unfolded right in front of my eyes! Am I supposed to just forget that ever happened and move on like the psychopath would have me believe? I’m sorry but that IS what I experienced. I am not a pathetic liar, thank you very much. I had to deal with that during my entire god dam childhood. I don’t lie and I never will, so help me God.

Why else do you think I’m over here at SOTT and supposedly “grokking” the crap out of all your material? Do I not sound sincere to you people? Have any of you actually read the BFN thread I linked? What’s the problem with doing a little research and finding out if this kid (me) is actually on to something? Why is it a problem from my POV immediately? I understand that it could be me

reading something into something that isn't there.

However, that’s a 50% chance from my POV at the moment. It could very well be true that I AM reading something into something that IS there.

It’s a 50/50. Why discount the other 50% right off the bat?

I think we ought to all take a deep breath, take our time about those we cannot be sure of, and those we CAN be sure of because of clear and evident deviant behavior (and there's plenty of them around, believe me!), we need to send packing asap.

Okay, so I have voiced my concern about clear and evident deviant behavior. Is the burden of proof on me!? I find that ludicrous to believe. I’m just an ignorant 25 year old kid from Boston. I highly doubt that anyone would put the burden of proof on me. Sure, individually I can voice all the concerns I want, but when working as a team, proof can be had! Two people can’t be correct about the objective reality, they can both be wrong…but they CAN’T both be correct. That, right there, is an irrefutable logical statement. We obviously don’t see eye to eye as far as my concerns with ESI go.

Can we get to a point where both of our perceptions about ESI synchronize?

How much time does it “take”, Laura, to determine “clear and evident deviant behavior”? “[W]e need to send packing asap”, huh? Okay then…let’s get to it! What’s the problem?

Maybe I can answer that question, actually. The problem might be lack of trust. You guys have no clue who I am or anything, so it’s probably not a priority for you to ‘investigate’ what I have to say. ::shrugs:: This may well be the case, however your sincere and very helpful replies seems to suggest that what I have to say is in fact important enough to warrant such an 'investigation'.

Is it because Steven Hertzberg owns the domain name www.pathocrat.com that you are defending him?

Why not just give me the down-low? You know the scoop? Wouldn’t that be true service-to-others in an objective reality? In this case the “service” is coming from SOTT and being provided to “others”, namely me (and whoever else has been following this thread).

So, please, speak the truth…what is going on?

After all, it is the great talent of the psychopath to turn normies against each other and keep them at each other's throats while the deviants destroy our lives and our world.

And it is working.

So if ESI is not part of the deviant crew, then why don’t you just ask Steven what the hell happened over at BFN? He should be the one that is able to explain with apparent innocence his intentions and all of his actions that followed the events at BFN. Because the only thing his actions have indicated to me is: ”clear and evident deviant behavior”

Let’s work on reconciling our POVs…what do you say?

 

[mudrabbit]

Hi yoyos

You seem to try too hard to convince us of your point of view. Yet you have not presented any backup of your own data. There's a lot you have not read, but you ASSUME that what you are concerned about has not been touched at all.

What is your reason for being here in the first place? Is it to make sure that we see something the same way you do? Then present data, raw facts. When you have presented the information, in a non-biased way, then MAYBE our POVs will match.....then again, maybe not. We are not in the habit of taking someone's word for something, we'd rather have the research.

You seem to have an emotional attachment to this thread. Have you read the guidelines or the associated material on the web? If not, then perhaps it would be a good idea, so you can see WHY we take the approach that we do.

It's one thing to say something about someone, another to prove it. But you seem to be hell bent on getting us to agree with you. Present the facts, please. What you say you witnessed over at BFN is only heresay until the facts are presented.

Peg

 

[j0da]

Yoyos, I think you would do well by calming down a bit, take some time and come back when you are cool. Emotions of course serve their role, but in this case they seem to cloud your perception. Really, there is no haste.

It's ok to be uncertain - it just means one hasn't enough data so he refrains from judgement until more information is available. I think you could try practicing this - being uncertain. By expanding your ability to confront uncertainty you have a good chance of avoiding serious traps, which await people who desperately jump to concusions in order to have something solid.

 

[yoyos]

Hi Peg,

Before I even say anything, I would like to state for the record that I am NOT looking for a fight. I am just asking for some help.

Why is the burden of proof on me? I already addressed that issue in my previous post. Peg, will you believe me if I spoon feed you some concocted evidence that I make up? How will you know that the ‘evidence’ I provide you with is anything to be trusted? I’ve always been under the impression that in order to truly understand something…you have to do the research YOURSELF! If you’re that curious enough to post such a reply…then why wait? Go to the BFN thread and check out all the evidence you need.

It's one thing to say something about someone, another to prove it. But you seem to be hell bent on getting us to agree with you. Present the facts, please. What you say you witnessed over at BFN is only heresay until the facts are presented.

I’m not trying to “prove’ anything, neither am I “hell bent on getting” you guys to do anything at all, let alone agree with me. I’m trying to figure something out. There is a difference…and I’m figuring out pretty quickly how hostile my comments are being perceived by you folks. Present the facts? It’s called visiting the BFN thread for yourself and ANALYZING the facts for YOURSELF. You want me to be your daddy too? I’m not here to hold your hand. I voiced my concerns. Why isn’t that enough for you people to even motivate yourselves to take a look at the thread? Scared what you might find? Too lazy to actually do some research yourself? What’s the problem? Should I strip down naked and present my whole life story to you just so you can trust me a little bit? Please, give me some credit.

Conversation is a wonderful tool to get to the bottom of things. Let’s continue this conversation…I’m VERY interested in getting to the bottom of this whole ESI controversy (yea, the controversy that I personally perceive exists with ESI). Last thing I could care about is convincing you folks about my POV. I am actually looking forward to having my POV change believe it or not. Why the hell would I personally choose to be under the wrong impression? If I’m wrong about ESI, then I would like very much to know that and be able to move on. Right now, ESI is like an annoying hangnail that’s bugging me every second. That’s where this conversation can help…


Now, to clarify some points and answer some questions:

There's a lot you have not read, but you ASSUME that what you are concerned about has not been touched at all.

Are you perhaps making some assumptions about how much I have read or not read?

Yes, I have assumed that. It’s a good assumption from a scientific standpoint. That’s how science works. You state your assumptions, make a hypothesis, and work from there. The experiment either turns out a failure or it turns out some positive results. If my assumption is unwarranted, then please point me to where the information I am concerned about HAS been touched. Thanks for the STO help…

What is your reason for being here in the first place? Is it to make sure that we see something the same way you do? Then present data, raw facts.

Nope, wrong. You can refer to my comments above. Here I’ll help you:

I’m VERY interested in getting to the bottom of this whole ESI controversy (yea, the controversy that I personally have with ESI). Last thing I could care about is convincing you folks about my POV. I am actually looking forward to having my POV change believe it or not.

Again…I could care less about convincing ANYONE of ANYTHING…that is what I call imposing on another human being’s free will and is STS! I don’t need to convince, however I do need to converse.

You seem to have an emotional attachment to this thread.

Maybe you haven’t noticed that I was the one who created this thread? Emotional attachment? Doubt it. Try again. Maybe you’ve never witnessed anyone stand up for themselves in life or actually give a crap about something where they are not going to be willing to just ‘take it on the chin’, be a good ol’ chap and get in line with the rest of the sheeple. I’m sorry, but I diggity-dig-doubt that one. Peg, do you ingest everything from other people you deem trustworthy without any thought of scrutiny?

Have you read the guidelines or the associated material on the web? If not, then perhaps it would be a good idea, so you can see WHY we take the approach that we do.

Making another assumption, Peg? Have my posts somehow gone against “the approach that we do”?

Subjective is the story about the blind men and the elephant - they all think that the elephant is the part of it that they are feeling and that is all there is. Objective is when they begin to share their observations and come to the realization that the elephant is more than what each of them experiences independently. Someone who can see would experience more of the elephant than the blind men, though this seeing would still be limited. Objective is the elephant as it experiences itself added to the observations of the blind men added together with view of the one who can see. It takes a group to achieve such objectivity. But once each of them has shared their perceptions and experience, and all of the group have assimilated this information, they can all then achieve an objective understanding of the elephant - or very close.

Okay, seems like I’m in the clear there.


*************

Hi j0da,

Yoyos, I think you would do well by calming down a bit, take some time and come back when you are cool. Emotions of course serve their role, but in this case they seem to cloud your perception. Really, there is no haste.

It's ok to be uncertain - it just means one hasn't enough data so he refrains from judgement until more information is available. I think you could try practicing this - being uncertain. By expanding your ability to confront uncertainty you have a good chance of avoiding serious traps, which await people who desperately jump to concusions in order to have something solid.

Thanks for the advice…I needed that. I think I’ll take a few days to chill chills a little bit. I’m definitely all fired up right now and my ability to serve others is probably being hindered tremendously. My deepest thanks goes out to you j0da for the hint. I apologize to everyone for being fired up so much and for acting so brazenly. Please forgive me in those respects...

 

[henry]

What strikes me as something weird is that I have all these concerns about ESI…and you folks don’t. Actually, it seems like you folks are trying to defend ESI. I don’t know why that would be. This prospect frightens me actually.

Don’t I read, on a regular basis, here at SOTT that Diebold is ‘bad’? How am I supposed to reconcile that fact, with the fact that you have not a single issue/concern working with an organization that is PROMOTING Diebold?! That’s a little bit of a conflict of interest from my POV. I'm curious to know how many more justifications can be thought of to justify working with Steven?

First, we are not defending ESI; we are still collecting data. We don't jump to conclusions, something that the people at B4N seem to do with little concern for the truth or the consequences. Very emotional over there. Gets in the way of their ability to think.

But from what I have read of what you have presented, I think that you are arguing on very thin ice here when you discuss ESI. You make a lot of leaps in your argument that don't have the data to back them. You seem to be very emotionally involved.

You highlight this from the report:

First and foremost, the ESI report is not an attack on the Diebold Accuvote TSX system. Indeed, the report findings include very positive reviews of the system from voters and booth workers.

This appears to be the basis of your concerns, and you interpret it to mean that ESI is "promoting" Diebold. That, to me, is stretching it. If some people gave the system very positive reviews, it is simply stating the facts to report it. One can then question why these individuals think positively about the system. Is it because it makes things easy for them? The reason may have nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy of the calculations or the facility with which they can be tampered.

So that one quote itself isn't an argument.

Furthermore, you admit that you don't have the math to understand either the article or the critique of the article. However, after admitting that, you write:

Okay, so we have a controversy over ESI’s scientific method. If it is indeed a fact, let’s presume for right now, that ESI’s report was deliberately skewed…then, to me, that poses a problem. Especially since the same guy who founded an organization that is supposedly trying to work against voter fraud…is committing fraud himself. And I’m not sure now, but I think that after the Election Archive pdf came out, ESI came out publicly and modified their original report.

So you say there is controversy. Controversy in itself means nothing. Controversy can be faked to promote something dubious, and it can also be used to discredit something legitimate.

You then say, if there is a controversy over their scientific method, that you are going to presume that the ESI report was deliberately skewed. But that is what you are trying to prove. You can't assume your proof, and the existence of controversy in itself is not data for or against skewed data. As Laura pointed out, this happens all of the time in scientific papers. It doesn't mean that there is any wilful wrong-doing going on, so by presuming it was deliberate, you put the cart before the horse. As I said, you are presuming what you seek to prove. I'm sure you wouldn't want that kind of argument used against you in a court of law.

You finish by saying that they may have modified the report. Maybe. You aren't certain, but you'll throw it in for good measure. But you don't know if it was modified or not. Would you want an argument like that used against you in a court of law?

You also accuse Steven of fraud based upon your initial assumption that he is guilty. So you are going very far on very little. Your accusations don't have much data to support them. It is leaps of logic and speculation on your part.

I repeat, would you want such arguments used against you in a court of law, or even in an Internet forum?

If you want to work with the guy so you can spread your material around, then fine; good to go. Do it up. I agree with that actually. BUT, why wouldn’t you folks take someone else’s concerns seriously?

We take data and facts seriously, not speculation and innuendo. You should read the thread here on the ethics of belief for an understanding of why. When there is new data, we will take it into account.

I believe that I have experienced 1st hand

clear and evident deviant behavior

from Steven Hertzberg. There is no way that you are going to convince me otherwise, well…that is unless you do have something extremely convincing to clue me in on. Laura, those emails you shared are nice; a good example and all, but I don’t believe I’m confused over matters of perception in this case.

Well, you think you aren't confused over matters of perception, but we never do. That is part of learning how your machine works. However, as an example of your perceptions, I repeat, would you want the kind of arguments you are making used against you? Your arguments betray more emotion than clear thinking.

Were you on the B4N forum during the episode discussed in the thread you gave us? What kind of first-hand clear and evident deviant behaviour did you experience?

II know what I saw and experienced with my own two eyes over at BFN.

What is your data? What was his "clear and evident deviant behavior"? If you followed the B4N thread as it was happening, if it unfolded before your eyes, then give us the details. We weren't there.

“Normal” people wouldn’t behave like Steven Hertzberg did when he was exposed over at BFN. If he believed in STO, he would have displayed the corresponding human characteristics. Unfortunately, the only type of behavior I experienced (1st hand don’t forget) was STS. The whole thing unfolded right in front of my eyes! Am I supposed to just forget that ever happened and move on like the psychopath would have me believe? I’m sorry but that IS what I experienced. I am not a pathetic liar, thank you very much. I had to deal with that during my entire god dam childhood. I don’t lie and I never will, so help me God.

I have no idea if Steven even knows what STO and STS stand for. But when someone is under attack in an environment they once thought was friendly, it can be a shock.

Please understand. You will read that and think that I am defending him. I am not. I am suggesting there can be explanations and reasons that you are not privy to that can provide a context to his actions of which you are not aware. There are many possibile explanations for what happened.

Until you have all the data, you won't know.

Why else do you think I’m over here at SOTT and supposedly “grokking” the crap out of all your material? Do I not sound sincere to you people? Have any of you actually read the BFN thread I linked? What’s the problem with doing a little research and finding out if this kid (me) is actually on to something? Why is it a problem from my POV immediately? I understand that it could be me

reading something into something that isn't there.

However, that’s a 50% chance from my POV at the moment. It could very well be true that I AM reading something into something that IS there.

It’s a 50/50. Why discount the other 50% right off the bat?

I have read the thread. Very interesting as Fintan outs himself and disses us because of our focus on the Pentagon issue regarding 911. No wonder I never heard back from him. It shows he doesn't understand priorities. The rest of the thread is noise. I didn't notice any deviant behavior from either navari or ormond being cited. Where is it?

People there were excited over nothing. It was egos and self-righteousness and a waste of time.

As for why you feel your POV is being dismissed, it is because there is no data to support it. I have read the thread. I don't see it. Give me new data and I'll look at it. If you want to "grok" SOTT, that is a good place to start. These are real lives that we are talking about. There are real people, and what you say, what I say, has consequences. It is our responsibility to be aware of those consequences and not do or say anything lightly.

Steven, from my exchanges with him, seems to really understand what Łobaczewski and SOTT are talking about when we discuss the issue of ponerology and the pathocracy.

No one at B4N does. Including Fintan, because if he did, he would have been willing to work with us on that topic. Instead he says that Steven's association with us shows that we're agents, along with the fact that we promote the Pentagon Strike. I reached out to him suggesting that we WORK together on the issue of ponerology, that in WORKING TOGETHER we might be able to develop some trust.

He chose to ignore the possibility of WORKING TOGETHER, that is, of doing something and taking the risk and chance of building some trust. Sure it is a risk, on both of our parts. But what can we actually accomplish if we don't take some calculated risks?

Okay, so I have voiced my concern about clear and evident deviant behavior. Is the burden of proof on me!? I find that ludicrous to believe. I’m just an ignorant 25 year old kid from Boston. I highly doubt that anyone would put the burden of proof on me.

You say it is ludicrous that the burden of proof is on you. Well, you're the one making the accusations, so, of course, the burden of proof is on you to back up what you say. That is called responsibility. It is very easy to criticize from the sidelines. We get that kind of criticism all the time. It is harder to be in the world actually doing something. From what I can see, Steven is doing something. He has a lot of ideas, and he is doing what he can to put them into action.

And, funnily enough, for me that counts. I am willing to take a caclulated risk in working with someone who is actually looking for ways of bringing this info out to people. And, for his part, he is, too.

Sure, individually I can voice all the concerns I want, but when working as a team, proof can be had! Two people can’t be correct about the objective reality, they can both be wrong…but they CAN’T both be correct. That, right there, is an irrefutable logical statement. We obviously don’t see eye to eye as far as my concerns with ESI go.

Can we get to a point where both of our perceptions about ESI synchronize?

How much time does it “take”, Laura, to determine “clear and evident deviant behavior”? “[W]e need to send packing asap”, huh? Okay then…let’s get to it! What’s the problem?

Maybe I can answer that question, actually. The problem might be lack of trust. You guys have no clue who I am or anything, so it’s probably not a priority for you to ‘investigate’ what I have to say. ::shrugs:: This may well be the case, however your sincere and very helpful replies seems to suggest that what I have to say is in fact important enough to warrant such an 'investigation'.

Is it because Steven Hertzberg owns the domain name www.pathocrat.com that you are defending him?

Why not just give me the down-low? You know the scoop? Wouldn’t that be true service-to-others in an objective reality? In this case the “service” is coming from SOTT and being provided to “others”, namely me (and whoever else has been following this thread).

So, please, speak the truth…what is going on?

It sounds like you are emotionally attached to this issue and aren't thinking or seeing clearly. It appears that the other members who have voiced their thoughts are pretty much in agreement. There isn't enough data to back your POV.

And why on earth would we defend Steven because he owns pathocracy.com??? What is the logic behind your thinking there?

As for the so-called "scoop", there is no scoop. The world is a rotten place to be, and it will remain that way until the psychopaths and their cohorts no longer have power. But no one is given the answer. They have to work for it. If you want to grok SOTT, that is another point to consider.

After all, it is the great talent of the psychopath to turn normies against each other and keep them at each other's throats while the deviants destroy our lives and our world.

And it is working.

So if ESI is not part of the deviant crew, then why don’t you just ask Steven what the hell happened over at BFN? He should be the one that is able to explain with apparent innocence his intentions and all of his actions that followed the events at BFN. Because the only thing his actions have indicated to me is: ”clear and evident deviant behavior”

Let’s work on reconciling our POVs…what do you say?

Well, the first place to start is for you to provide us with concrete details of the deviant behaviour you are accusing him of. We haven't seen it yet. I have read the B4N thread. I don't see it. I read your argument and all I see are leaps of logic and speculation that doesn't have data to back it up.

So the trouble is, I don't know what "deviant behavior" on Steven's part you are referring to when you raise the question. You talk about how he was "exposed" on B4N. What was he exposed as? What did he do that was deviant. Taking his name off of things or closing his youtube account are hardly deviant behaviors, however, you are very free in your use of provocative language.

And just what is the problem that he owns the domain name "pathocrat.com"?

Trust

You raise the issue of trust. No, we don't know your name, we don't know what projects you have been involved with, we don't know your role over at B4N, we know nothing about you other than what you have said on this forum. As of yet, nothing you have said gives us any data that support the hypothesis that Steven is deviant. You use his full name a lot, but you remain nameless. If you chose to be nameless here, then perhaps you can understand why Steven wanted to be nameless on B4N?

Trust is earned and is achieved by working together over a period of time. Do people's words match their actions? I don't know Steven. We have exchanged emails. He invited me to contribute to the RPO site in order to get out the word about ponerology and the pathocracy. He then published my article. More are coming. RPO is a useful platform to reach people we don't normally reach, so we are using it. So far, Steven is good to his word.

I offered a hand to Fintan and was shot down. I explained that at the beginning we wouldn't trust each other, but that if we both understood that ponerology was the key issue facing all people of conscience, that it was worth taking the chance to work together and open the possibility of building some level of trust. He refused. Not only that, he is now dissing us and Steven.

If you really understand what we are faced with on this planet, which one are you going to work with?

So if you want to build some trust with us, then what are you willing to DO? What projects are you involved in that can be used to spread the word about psychopathy, ponerology, the pathocracy, and the fact that these deviants are going to try and kill off 94% of the planet's population? If you aren't doing anything yet, what will you be doing tomorrow?

 

[Miss Isness]

I had a look at the BFN thread that yoyo suggested we read. I have to admit it's all a bit confusing to me. It's clear there's some suspicious activity going on, but what exactly? What's disturbing is that one member came to the following conclusion:

Eddie T at BFN wrote: Well at the very least it seems like a bit of normalcy can return to the forum. Seems safe to say at this point 1) Ron Paul=distraction 2) North American Union=bs 3) Pathocrat=bs/distraction 4) Do a search for Ormond or Navari...anything they harp on or bring up is a distraction 5) We can learn a lot from exposing a fake.

I could be off in left field but I get the impression that SotT and Cass are being set up for guilt by association.

There's also this:

Fintan wrote: So the Op is blown, and a bit earlier than I would have preferred, but no prob. As usual we learn a lot about the 2004 election and by inference about the role of Ron Paul, and via the pathocrat material also tells us about http://www.cassiopaea.org (as if we didn't know. It was Cassiopaea, which launched the "Pentagon Strike" diversion on us, btw.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

There is a difference…and I’m figuring out pretty quickly how hostile my comments are being perceived by you folks.

If you feel your posts are being perceived as hostile, perhaps you could exercise some external consideration and practice some "perception management." So, when you are emotionally charged, try not posting while in this state. Wait for your emotions to cool down, and then take a more cool-headed approach.

For example, how are we to perceive the following?

Present the facts? It’s called visiting the BFN thread for yourself and ANALYZING the facts for YOURSELF. You want me to be your daddy too? I’m not here to hold your hand.

Here it is you using bold text (emoting frustration, "yelling") and taking a patronizing tone. While I do not think anyone perceives any overt hostility, there is definitely a tone of frustration and aggression in your posts.

I voiced my concerns. Why isn’t that enough for you people to even motivate yourselves to take a look at the thread? Scared what you might find? Too lazy to actually do some research yourself? What’s the problem? Should I strip down naked and present my whole life story to you just so you can trust me a little bit? Please, give me some credit.

Can you not see how your emotions are causing you to be rude and demanding? To be honest, you sound like a petulant child. This isn't an insult. We all sound like petulant children when we let our emotions get the better of ourselves.

Thanks for the STO help…

More rudeness.

You seem to have an emotional attachment to this thread.

Maybe you haven’t noticed that I was the one who created this thread? Emotional attachment? Doubt it. Try again.

Okay, you say you have no emotional attachment here, and yet:

Maybe you’ve never witnessed anyone stand up for themselves in life or actually give a crap about something where they are not going to be willing to just ‘take it on the chin’, be a good ol’ chap and get in line with the rest of the sheeple.

Perhaps you should consider the meaning of the words emotional attachment. If you were not emotionally attached or "identified" with this particular issue, you REALLY wouldn't care what we thought on the issue. And you wouldn't expect a thing from us. And yet, you'd still be able to have a conversation, without being rude.

I’m sorry, but I diggity-dig-doubt that one. Peg, do you ingest everything from other people you deem trustworthy without any thought of scrutiny?

More rudeness.

Thanks for the advice…I needed that. I think I’ll take a few days to chill chills a little bit. I’m definitely all fired up right now and my ability to serve others is probably being hindered tremendously.

This is what the other members have been trying to get through to you. You don't seem to have very much control of your emotions. That's normal. But it can and will be used against you. That's all we're trying to point out to you.

My deepest thanks goes out to you j0da for the hint. I apologize to everyone for being fired up so much and for acting so brazenly. Please forgive me in those respects...

 

[Laura]

Okay, here comes the juicy stuff. I should also disclaimer all of this with the fact that all of this information came out of BFN and things that have occurred over there.

Which immediately makes us somewhat leery of said information. Sorry, but that's the way it is at present.

If you go ahead and do a google search for “election science institute” you’ll find a link to a pdf file. Here it is: http://uscountvotes.org/ucvAnalysis/US/exit-polls/ESI/ESI-hypothesis-illogical.pdf The title of the pdf reads: “Mathematical Proof that Election Sciences Institute's Test to Rule Out Vote Fraud Is Logically Incorrect Even If Logically Corrected, ESI's Test Would Require More Data and Have Many Pitfalls”

After skimming the paper, it didn’t take me long to realize I would have needed to take a few extra math courses (or paid attention more to the ones I did take) to understand the proof they present. So, I DO NOT know who is in the right, ESI or ElectionArchive.org (that’s the organization name printed on the lower left of each page of the pdf). I DO KNOW that there is a controversy…and it seems pretty important, too.

Well, what I gather from http://uscountvotes.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=17&Itemid=45 , is that this is a group that is upset about the possibility of vote fraud and want to try to do something about it "within the system." I think that most of us already realize that there is no possibility of doing anything "within the system." So, even if they are sincere and well-intended, it's just time wasting busywork.

Nevertheless, we look a tiny bit deeper and notice the "mission statements" of the two organizations:

Founded in 2002 under the name Votewatch, we began as the nation's first nonpartisan, citizen-driven election monitoring organization. Now, under our new name, Election Science Institute (ESI), our goal is to bring together citizens, survey researchers and leading technologies to promote fair, transparent and accurate elections.

The National Election Data Archive is a scientific research project whose mission is to objectively investigate the accuracy of elections in America through the creation and analysis of a database containing detailed precinct-level election data for the entire United States. [...] The National Election Data Archive strives to remain objective and non-partisan.

So, basically, they are claiming to be performing the same function. In short, they are "rivals."

Okay, that adds a little to the context.

Apparently, some guy named Warren Mitofsky was responsible for the theory behind the contested report as well as the report itself.

I agree, that the hypothesis of the ESI report is totally absurd.

So, since there is a controversy…I thought it worthwhile to take note.

And this is right about where “the plot thickens”:

Okay, so we have a controversy over ESI’s scientific method. If it is indeed a fact, let’s presume for right now, that ESI’s report was deliberately skewed…then, to me, that poses a problem.

Agreed. It seems that this Mitofsky guy is behind that theory and report as far as I can tell.

Especially since the same guy who founded an organization that is supposedly trying to work against voter fraud…is committing fraud himself.

Well, here's where we can't make that assumption. Just because Steven Hertzberg founded the group, that doesn't mean that he has committed fraud.

You might be interested in reading my "Adventures Series" which reveals many details about how a psycho-deviant spent about two years insinuating himself into our group - really had me fooled - and how, if we had not figured it out in time and taken corrective action, we would have been tarred with the brush that was all juiced up and ready to paint him black and evil. (Which he was, but we weren't.) The thing is, we would NOT have had a clue about him if it had not been for my chats with the Cs... (I'm sure you've heard of them?) It was thanks to them that this guy was exposed and we hauled our buns out of the fire in time. Yeah, we got a little scorched, but not as bad as it would have been if we had continued down the path of association and intertwining our work with his.

So, anyway, he was exposed, we found out that he was a whacko, and felt pretty vulnerable because we simply didn't understand how someone could lie so much and so WELL! We also realized how easy it would have been for so many people to think that we were exactly like him, because, after all, he was really working for that close association, to be a spokesman for us, to represent us, etc etc. It was, in fact, that experience that drove us to try to understand the issues which then led to our research on psychopathy.

But not everyone has the Cs to warn them when someone is an accomplished liar and con-artist. So, I'm willing to leave it open that this Steven Hertzberg guy got taken in by someone like we did.

That may not be the case, but having experienced it myself, I'm not too quick to jump on the judgment bandwagon in such situations.

And I’m not sure now, but I think that after the Election Archive pdf came out, ESI came out publicly and modified their original report.

Do you know the exact nature of the modifications? Did they distance themselves from the ideas of this Mitofsky guy?

After all, when we discovered the nature of our psychopathic agent, we came out and publicly announced a "bifurcation of the ways." Yeah, we had some egg on our face, but I always think that it is better to admit one's mistakes and try to fix them and learn from them, and help others to learn from them than to try to cover stuff up.

So, the fact that there was a public modification could actually be in favor of Steven.

Also, I’ve notice that the home page of ESI has changed since I first visited it a couple of weeks ago when all hell broke loose over at BFN. The home page of ESI used to treat the newcomer with a nice little hello from Steven Hertzberg. I wonder why that isn’t there anymore?

Well, it certainly might have something to do with "all hell breaking loose" over on BFN. (Which I simply do not have time to read at the present, sorry. You'll have to be my source.)

What I would really like to have is a timeline of events, posts, etc that surround the issues that concern you. I would like to have this with dates and even times, if possible. You know, like so-and-so posted thus and so on such and such a day at this time. Then, blankety-blank responded with this at such a time on the same day, or the next day, or whatever.

If you could put that together for me, condense it to the bare essentials of hard data with time stamps, we might sort through this.

Another thing. As I’m looking at the site now, would you trust anyone that says the following?

ESI Memorandum to Ohio Election Officials
State: OH County: Cuyahoga
Author(s): Steven Hertzberg Date: 08-22-2006

Summary: n April 2006, prior to the May 2 primary, the Cuyahoga County Commission contracted with the Election Science Institute (ESI) to conduct a comprehensive review of how their new voting system actually worked on an election day. ESI’s report, including the performance of the Diebold Accuvote TSX voting system, was released by the Cuyahoga County Commissioners. Since then, Diebold circulated a response to the report, to which ESI has responded (see attached). ESI understands that Ohio’s election officials have been under intense scrutiny and that the challenges of implementing both HAVA and House Bill No. 3 are enormous. ESI had the privilege of working with several Ohio county election officials on this report. We were impressed by their professionalism and commitment to the integrity of the elections process. For this reason, we are concerned that the findings of this report have been misinterpreted and misreported. First and foremost, the ESI report is not an attack on the Diebold Accuvote TSX system. Indeed, the report findings include very positive reviews of the system from voters and booth workers.

Last time I checked Diebold was pretty shady. So what’s the deal (and I didn’t exactly check very hard, so…I’m open to answers)?

Agreed. Diebold is more than shady.

But please take not of who the memorandum is addressed to. And, once again, consider the context. Do you really think that any organization that wishes (even if it is naive) to be taken seriously by an official organization such as Ohio Election Officials, is going to come out and start flinging "conspiracy theory" mud around?

And believe me, I think it IS a conspiracy.

But, if I was trying to strategically work my way into a position where I could actually do some good, I would pull my punches, bite my tongue, and say a lot of "officialese" type stuff to get my foot in the door. Otherwise, right off the git-go the official organizations are going to simply toss anything you say into the circular file and the average Joe and Jane are going to be informed, long and loud, that you and your organization are just spittle-spewing "conspiracy theorists" and need to be diagnosed and medicated immediately.

Think about it.

Additionally, if Steven Hertzberg is working so hard to defend voter fraud (as in allowing it to happen), then what the hell is he doing working with the Ron Paul campaign?!

You don't know that Steven Hertzberg is doing those things as you described them. That's a real leap of assumption as I have already described.

That’s a red flag for me, I’m sorry. Can’t get any redder or flaggy than that!

Red Flag by association, sure. But we don't really have any hard data and we also don't know the "inside story." We need that data.

Actually, one more thing I think is worth mentioning. When Steven Hertzberg’s cover was blown at BFN (his forum alias was “navari”), a lot of shady deletions and history erasures occurred over the WWW. If you guys are interested, I highly suggest going through that thread and seeing what happened. But for the lazier, I’ll give you an example:

As I mentioned above, I would like a data chronology: who said and did what when.

Fintan Dunne has a youtube page. And when Steven Hertzberg’s cover was blown at BFN,

What do you mean "cover was blown"? I'm not privy to the details. Need data chronology.

someone noticed that the only subscriber to Fintan’s youtube page was Steven Hertzberg himself!

Who noticed, when and why and how? What preceded this discovery in terms of what you describe as "cover" being "blown"?

Additionally, Steven Hertzberg also had his own youtube page with PLENTY of videos and subscribers. So, what happens to all this when a BFN forum member notices the youtube connection and makes a post about it?

What forum member? What day? Time? In what context? Can you supply this data concisely and chronologically?

Yup, you guessed it, Fintan no longer had his single subscriber and “This account is closed” (referring to Steven Hertzberg’s youtube account). I wonder what all those subscribers to Steven's youtube page must be thinking about that?

I'm sorry if I am dense, but I don't really see the connection. I feel like I am missing a lot of data here.

Now, let me just add that I don't have a whole lot of time. In addition to this forum, I try to keep up with about half a dozen private discussion groups, working groups, websites, do research and write for the site and my new book about Biblical Archaeology. I also have a large family to look after (both physically present and virtual), business affairs. I spent most of the last two weeks nursing our beloved Sheltie who we almost lost to a terrible tick-borne disease, and the resulting stress has negatively affected my own health. (I'm not a spring chicken!) So, considering that I put in 18 hour days and there is never enough time, I really will appreciate it more than you know if you will help me out here by assembling material that I can read through quickly and have at hand the essential facts and DATA. I think we can sort this thing out satisfactorily.

 

[Laura]

I could be off in left field but I get the impression that SotT and Cass are being set up for guilt by association.

You probably are... off in left field, that is.

 

[mudrabbit]

Hi Peg,

Before I even say anything, I would like to state for the record that I am NOT looking for a fight. I am just asking for some help.

whoah, yoyos.

I wasn't looking for one either, but you seem really defensive. Rather I was trying to help you out by pointing out a few things and directing you to some info that could help.

You say you aren't emotionally attached to this thread, then why did YOU start it?

Geesh, don't assume things if you don't have all the facts.

Peg

 

[Meg]

The first article is up:

http://www.ronpaulonline.com/content/view/190/197/

I forwarded this to a friend. We have been discussing psychopaths and she couldn't really wrap her head around the fact that some people don't have a conscience or empathy for that matter. This article woke her up to it. She said she was going to email Ron Paul about it and has forwarded it on to her email contacts.

I really liked the comparison to insiders v. outsiders and how the ponerization of society is an inside(r) job. It seems to me the ponerization of our social values has many, many layers and I was actually quite shocked to see it in myself, layer after layer.

I thought it was a great article. I look forward to the next installment!