Jim Maars

[Laura]

Actually, I don't think it is all that obvious to other people that Rense is possibly - and notice I say possibly - running a tar baby/vacuum cleaner operation. I don't really think that we can evaluate anyone because they do or do not link to Rense.

I mean, once you have had the picture hidden in the picture pointed out to you, you can never not see it again. But for those who haven't seen it, they don't see it.

 

[dantem]

There's a video link on ifilm.com, "9/11 Truth: Jim Marrs Compares 9/11 to the Kennedy Assassination".

I was always lead into old Marrs articles, and that may have been very misleading. Now what catch my attention is that Marrs seems to be used right and left for whatever conspiracy "show" is on air, and his name is so notorious, far and wide... and this vacuum cleaner operation is designed to keep all these valuable researchers busy. R. Dolan was also busy in a TV series isn't it? Was it good, was it bad?

It's like someone's draining creative energy here.

 

[Fifth Way]

.. 'aparently' sounds a bit like projection as the page is clearly not called CLOSE friends. ...And yes, I read everything concerning Rense on thease pages (and posted some) and agree 100%, however I doubt Maars has. Which reminds me, I shall send him an email and make him aware of it and link the threads.

Sounds like you have a bit of a personal investment here, Fifth Way.

Apart of the time having spent to read the books I have none. (Just a gental reminder: Don't assume)

Why would Mars have Rense listed on his site at all? It doesn't take a genius to see that the Rense site is ripe with disinfo.

See Laura's post #2584.

Also as far as this comment is concerned:

With the further I agree, the later I cannot judge.

It sounds a bit abrupt, to say the least. How can you 'not judge' when all dantem is asking is if he is seeing this situation in a way others might be seeing it - or in an objective way.

"Abrupt, to say the least"? :/
No. He is indirectly asking me whether I agree if his reading instrument is off as he puts a question-mark at the end. This is (I think) supposed to be a rhetorical question that i am supposed to answer with: "No. of course I don't think so." But the truth is: I don't now. And that is what I said.

...as in a If you agree that we need more clues, then that would indicate that dantem's reading instrument here is not off.

See, now it seems to me that you agree with datem's rhetorical indication which reveals your bias. But then you say "that would indicate" which means you do not know for sure either. So how can my not judgmental statement be judged by you in a negative way? I don't understand.

Fwiw - you are coming across as rather defensive and/or aggressive with your responses here - why is that?

Defensive and/or aggressive? 8|
Datem may not be the only one with the potentiality of 'off reading instruments'. OSIT ;)

 

[anart]

Interesting reply - so you are saying that you're not defensive - and have no 'sacred cow' at all with this Jim Maars person?

While I see Laura's point about Rense's site, and agree that it is a good point - I still have to point out that Maars is supposed to be an investigative journalist. Long before I found the Cass sites and started working on figuring out what was and was not going on, I understood that the Rense site was 'for entertainment purposes only', if you get my drift.

I suppose I just find it hard to believe that I was an exception - or so 'discerning' at that point - I mean, is it really that hard to tell? I don't think so - and for an investigative journalist? Just seems odd to me, but, then again - a lot of things seem odd to me and that is probably neither here nor there.

 

[Laura]

Interesting reply - so you are saying that you're not defensive - and have no 'sacred cow' at all with this Jim Maars person?

I didn't see it as a "sacred cow" about Jim Maars. After all, we have to consider that our point of view here is underpinned by researches guided by "other" intelligence.

While I see Laura's point about Rense's site, and agree that it is a good point - I still have to point out that Maars is supposed to be an investigative journalist. Long before I found the Cass sites and started working on figuring out what was and was not going on, I understood that the Rense site was 'for entertainment purposes only', if you get my drift.

And how best to get information out to people? I suspect that Jim Maars is fully aware that Rense is an "entertainment" site. Not much different from us advertising in a magazine. If we had the money, we would do it even if it was an entertainment magazine. How else to reach people?

I suppose I just find it hard to believe that I was an exception - or so 'discerning' at that point - I mean, is it really that hard to tell? I don't think so - and for an investigative journalist? Just seems odd to me, but, then again - a lot of things seem odd to me and that is probably neither here nor there.

See above.

We can discern a lot of things, but as the Cs have said, be wise as serpents and gentle as Doves. Jim Maars doesn't have the Cs to help him avoid certain pitfalls. There are, in fact, many errors I made - errors that seemed perfectly logical and reasonable to me based on deep research and all I knew at that point. It was only that the Cs said: nope, you need to research more, that kept me from drawing conclusions too soon.

Jim Maars is a pretty good investigative journalist and for the most part, he seems to be doing okay - better than most in his profession, for sure - so I'm not going to fault him because he doesn't have that extra insight that, for us, was so hard won.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

Not to go off-topic but what do you anart and FW mean when you say "judge" and "judgemental"? Are you talking about subjective judging or objective assessment? As I understand it, objective assessment can be wrong but it doesn't make it judgement, which is by definition subjective. Like if I say anart is wearing a hat right now, I can be wrong, but it doesn't mean it's a subjective judgement - just an incorrect assessment (well actually since it's based on 0 data it's not an assessment but an assumption). Speaking of assumptions, when you said judge in the above exchange, do you mean assume or do you literally mean subjectively judge like "You're a great individual!" and other similarly subjective stuff?

I ask this because "judge" is a heavily ponerized word and often when someone talks about judging in the "normal world" they're talking about assessment/analysis and really mean "do not analyze me/someone else" (great way for pathocracy to encourage people not to analyze others and perhaps learn about the psychopaths is to call analysis judgement and judge it as "bad" unless you're a professional psychiatrist of course). I think very often people also confuse assume and judge. "I think anart is beautiful" is a judgement. "I think anart wears a hat" is an assumption. "I think anart wears an ugly hat" is both. But there is a difference, and I guess I'm just confused and wondering if there was miscommunication due to using the same word with a different meaning?

P.S. - Anart - I'm sure any hat you wear is really pretty though. *hides*

 

[dantem]

Fifth Way wrote:

No. He is indirectly asking me whether I agree if his reading instrument is off as he puts a question-mark at the end. This is (I think) supposed to be a rhetorical question that i am supposed to answer with: "No. of course I don't think so." But the truth is: I don't now. And that is what I said.

Hi FW, I don't get the "rhetorical" issue here. Maybe it's a language problem. And so, how do I have to ask the forum whether "my reading instrument is off" or not, concerning Jim Marrs in this case?

Actually I don't see it as "rhetorical" as I 've stated that I've read only one book, and so I was rather expecting a negative and critical response, and Laura gave one both to Anart and me, i.e. a good point.

Now I have to ask myself - why I still don't like Jim Marrs at all? ))
Perhaps it's either because I was lead by a wrong "impression" about himself, imprinted back in the past (assumption), or is that having no clues at hand by now, I still - ditto - carry that old shadow with me, trying to find forcibly that he's actually wrong without me really noticing.

Then, when I saw the 'Friend of Jim' page, I though that (apparently) they were close ones, as I didn't see so much "friends" listed on that page, and it sounded to me a fair doubt to point out.

 

[anart]

Then, when I saw the 'Friend of Jim' page, I though that (apparently) they were close ones, as I didn't see so much "friends" listed on that page, and it sounded to me a fair doubt to point out.

That makes sense to me, fwiw. And, I never said the guy was evil, just that the association seemed odd to me, and that it did seem, to me, that Fifth Way was a bit defensive about it, so I wondered why. Clearly I was mistaken on that, so apologies all around.

I didn't even 'know' the C's existed when I first saw the Rense site and got the sense that it was not all above board, so to speak - but maybe I just don't like guys in wigs? Of course I understand the 'advertising in a magazine' analogy and it makes sense. Again - I wasn't saying Maars is evil - I'll try to make myself more clear next time.

Oh, and I'll send SAO a pic of the hat I'm wearing so he has proof that it's hideous. ;)

 

[Fifth Way]

Not to go off-topic but what do you anart and FW mean when you say "judge" and "judgemental"? Are you talking about subjective judging or objective assessment?

I was talking about subjective judging.

"I think anart is beautiful" is a judgement.

Me too. And so is "Fifth Way is abrupt/defensive/agressive." Or so I think.

I don't get the "rhetorical" issue here. Maybe it's a language problem. And so, how do I have to ask the forum whether "my reading instrument is off" or not, concerning Jim Marrs in this case?

I think it is a context problem. I was under the impression that you where addressing me personally:

Hi FW

You stressed your point of view by inserting that extra word "close" ...

(or apparently close friends)

...implying an extra importance to that "friendship" that I did not see. And then you asked me (as I thought at the time) whether your reading instrument was off, in form of a question. You could have said:"But maybe my reding instrument is off." Rather ending with a period, hence expressing that you are considering the possibility that it is. So I thought that was a rhetorical question because you just expressed in the previous sentence WHY you thought it was not.

But of course if you addressed the forum...

I am sorry that I in fact did misread you! I shall get my own instruments tuned.

 

[Ruth]

I didn't even 'know' the C's existed when I first saw the Rense site and got the sense that it was not all above board, so to speak - but maybe I just don't like guys in wigs?

There's definately something 'sus' about Rense and completely and utterly 'below board', so to speak. I wonder how many people he has sucked in by his vacume operation. I suppose there may be degrees of how much people can get 'sucked in' too. In my subjective opinion he's working for the wrong team... This does not automatically mean that anybody deliberately or accidentally associated with him is in the same league. Provided they figure it out in time.

 

[ArdVan]

Why would Mars have Rense listed on his site at all? It doesn't take a genius to see that the Rense site is ripe with disinfo.

See Laura's post #2584.

Did I miss something here? I don't think you can find a post by a unique number in this forum. So either you are making a cynical joke here or you made the mistake of looking at the total number of posts on the left side. Am I right? 8|

 

[Ryan]

I didn't even 'know' the C's existed when I first saw the Rense site and got the sense that it was not all above board, so to speak - but maybe I just don't like guys in wigs?

Yeah, my first impressions of the Rense site were that I was being "sold" something. I never got that from the Cass site, which is probably one reason I ended up sticking around and reading more.

 

[Peto]

See Laura's post #2584.

Did I miss something here? I don't think you can find a post by a unique number in this forum. So either you are making a cynical joke here or you made the mistake of looking at the total number of posts on the left side. Am I right? 8|

Actually, there is a unique number to each post in this forum. You can see it by placing the cursor on the link above the user name at the left of any post. For example, your post that I'm quoting here has the id of 35827. However, it is true that FW mistook the total number of posts under the avatar with the post id. The id for Laura's post is 35750.

 

[Mr. Premise]

For me it only works if I put my cursor over the date and time on the left of the post.

See Laura's post #2584.

Did I miss something here? I don't think you can find a post by a unique number in this forum. So either you are making a cynical joke here or you made the mistake of looking at the total number of posts on the left side. Am I right? 8|

Actually, there is a unique number to each post in this forum. You can see it by placing the cursor on the link above the user name at the left of any post. For example, your post that I'm quoting here has the id of 35827. However, it is true that FW mistook the total number of posts under the avatar with the post id. The id for Laura's post is 35750.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

"I think anart is beautiful" is a judgement.

Me too. And so is "Fifth Way is abrupt/defensive/agressive." Or so I think.

I disagree here. The words abrupt/defensive/aggressive have an objective meaning, the word beautiful has no objective meaning. So in my understanding, what Anart said is either a correct objective assessment of your behavior or an incorrect objective assessment - but since the words she used have an objective meaning, it is not a judgment which is something entirely subjective and therefore entirely meaningless.

And I am sure that you are well aware that many people become defensive and/or aggressive when their sacred cows are pointed out and questioned. Are you saying that pointing out this defensive and/or aggressive behavior to people is a judgment on our part and therefore meaningless/subjective/should not be done? If not, then why would you call it a judgment when it is directed at you? Perhaps she is incorrect and you were not being defensive, but that would only mean that her assessment was incorrect, not that she "judged" you - because what she said was not subjective like "Your attitude is weird" - but it was objective.

One example of defensive behavior would be ironically to call something a judgment when it is in fact an objective assessment (regardless of whether it is correct or not). So the worst case scenario is that it was an assumption based on 0 data, in which case your reminder not to assume would apply. However, whatever data lead Anart to suggest what she did, in my view the idea that you called it judgment further supports her hypothesis. I don't have enough data to make any conclusions of course, and I don't think what Anart said was a conclusion on her part either - she just saw some clues/data that from her experience and knowledge indicated a certain possibility, and she mentioned this possibility. Whether it is accurate or not is the real question - but whether what she said is entirely meaningless (which is what a judgment would be) is not the question, at least not in my understanding.

Defensive means defending something more with emotions and rationalizations than with data. It also can mean splitting a hair 4 ways to try to defend something, or over-analyzing, and basically doing anything and everything to defend a certain position, thing, person, idea, belief, for any other reason that because the data points to this - it also can mean ignoring certain data or misinterpreting what the data is actually pointing to, etc. So if someone does any of the above, sometimes it can be subtle, so pointing it out is not a judgment of them, it's not subjective. You can be wrong and your reading instrument may not be assessing the situation correctly, but it's still not a judgment.

This is why I try to avoid the word judgment entirely - it is so obfuscated in its meaning and used in so many ways for so many reasons with so much confusion surrounding it, I find it safer to avoid using it completely.