Libel and Defamation Against SOTT, Cass, LKJ, QFG, etc

Leo40 said:
Just a friendly warning.

What is this, National FUBAR Day in Canada? While a retraction couldn't hurt, I don't think this is fixable ...we KNOW who's going to take this post and run with it. :mad:

Leo, where was your head? In addition to the FACT that you don't speak for Laura and the group...even IF you were going to go after someone, you don't tell them!!
 
truth seeker said:
I agree, I was only able to listen to a few seconds of that and had similar thoughts.
There is no doubt in my mind that this music can cause cellular damage...and is does NOT take much either!
 
Having slept on it, and read the new posts, I agree that an apology is the best way to go. Also agree to keep it short and edit it to Leo40's original post as well. Whenever I do something wrong, I can't rest until I apologize. So, the principle is sound, but I'm hoping there isn't more "manic activity" triggered by the apology.

At this point, just doing the right thing and setting things straight by telling the truth seems like the only way to go.

Besides anything else, this should be a learning experience for anyone to always network, especially when you are going to do something that can have a boomerang effect on Laura / the group. And we are NOT in the business of intimidating or bullying others about their opinions, no matter how misguided/misinformed they might be; and I think it's a bad idea to go on those types of forums with the intention to interact "and set them straight" etc. I think for those who want to know the truth, they'll check things out for themselves and make efforts to get to the bottom of it. The rest are pretty much "lost causes" and should be left alone to do as they please.
 
Okay, it's over. Hopefully, lesson learned. Leo40, just stay away from the Icke forum and then you won't be upset and tempted. Remember the attributes of the warrior.

Having your "say" is basically self-importance. It is giving your energy away to the illusion. Remember, the Universe will provide the right opportunity to "give what is due in due course.

It's all about control, discipline, forebearance, timing.

Nothing can temper the spirit of a warrior as much as the challenge of dealing with impossible people in positions of power. Only under those conditions can warriors acquire the sobriety and serenity to stand the pressure of the unknowable. These "positions of power" can be varied and would include somebody holding forth on another forum.

The perfect ingredient for the making of a superb seer is a petty tyrant with unlimited prerogatives. Seers have to go to extremes to find a worthy one. Most of the time they have to be satisfied with very small fry. An individual telling lies and defaming on another forum is, really, a very small, teensy petty tyrant. If you haven't trained to deal with such by dealing with your own, personal petty tyrant, i.e. your own programs and emotions, you have no business going out and trying to walk amongst them elsewhere - they will devour you.

Warriors develop a strategy using the four attributes of warriorship: control, discipline, forbearance, and timing.

Don Juan said that what the new seers had in mind was a deadly manoeuvre in which the petty tyrant is like a mountain peak and the attributes of warriorship are like climbers who meet at the summit.

Control and discipline refer to an inner state. A warrior is self-oriented, not in a selfish way but in the sense of a total examination of the self.

Forbearance and timing are not quite an inner state. They are in the domain of the man of knowledge.

The idea of using a petty tyrant is not only for perfecting the warrior's spirit, but also for enjoyment and happiness. Even the worst tyrants can bring delight, provided, of course, that one is a warrior.

The mistake average men make in confronting petty tyrants is not to have a strategy to fall back on; the fatal flaw is that average men take themselves too seriously; their actions and feelings, as well as those of the petty tyrants, are all-important. Warriors, on the other hand, not only have a well-thought-out strategy, but are free from self-importance. What restrains their self-importance is that they have understood that reality is an interpretation we make.

Petty tyrants take themselves with deadly seriousness while warriors do not. What usually exhausts us is the wear and tear on our self-importance. Any man who has an iota of pride is ripped apart by being made to feel worthless.

To tune the spirit when someone is trampling on you is called control. Instead of feeling sorry for himself a warrior immediately goes to work mapping the petty tyrant's strong points, his weaknesses, his quirks of behaviour. This is what this thread is about. It's not about anyone going out there on their own and bringing fire down on our heads.

To gather all this information while they are beating you up is called discipline.

A perfect petty tyrant has no redeeming feature.

Forbearance is to wait patiently--no rush, no anxiety--a simple, joyful holding back of what is due.


A warrior knows that he is waiting and what he is waiting for. Right there is the great joy of warriorship.

Timing is the quality that governs the release of all that is held back.

Control, discipline, and forbearance are like a dam behind which everything is pooled. Timing is the gate in the dam.

Forbearance means holding back with the spirit something that the warrior knows is rightfully due. It doesn't mean that a warrior goes around plotting to do anybody mischief, or planning to settle past scores. Forbearance is something independent. As long as the warrior has control, discipline, and timing, forbearance assures giving whatever is due to whoever deserves it.

To be defeated by a small-fry petty tyrant is not deadly, but devastating. Warriors who succumb to a small-fry petty tyrant are obliterated by their own sense of failure and unworthiness.

Anyone who joins the petty tyrant is defeated. To act in anger, without control and discipline, to have no forbearance, is to be defeated.

After warriors are defeated they either regroup themselves or they abandon the quest for knowledge and join the ranks of the petty tyrants for life.
 
That's a wonderful summary Laura I think its good for all of us to be reminded of this.
 
Just wanted to say that while it is understandable that people here want to defend against the liars and defamers, please take our advice, which is the result of YEARS of attempting to do this, that it DOES NOT WORK. It simply gives the defamers more material to continue the discussion and defaming. It is ENTIRELY counterproductive.
 
Laura said:
Okay, it's over. Hopefully, lesson learned. Leo40, just stay away from the Icke forum and then you won't be upset and tempted. Remember the attributes of the warrior.

Here's what ufochick wrote in response:
This forum is made up of many types of people, hopefully the one thing they have in common is the attitude of non-compliance to laws and the legal system that invade their freedoms.

You cannot control what others say about anything or anyone and should not need or want to, if you find someone offensive the ignore feature is available.

If something is true and good it will hold up over time if it is not it will fade away. If a person who seeks followers cannot hold up under scrutiny then they will not lead long and that's as it should be.

Thanks Laura for the reminder that this is a fight with petty tyrants and we have to constantly remember ourselves and be aware of our actions.

Let's hope no more ill will come from this.
 
Speaking of what's productive and what's counter-productive, this made me think of various friends who I've suggested read The Wave and Adventures With Cassiopaea online. I give them a few minutes and their response is often, "Who is this Laura? She sounds like a crazy cult leader." I say, "What makes you think that?" They say, "Oh, before I visited the website, I googled her and this site came up that debunks her." And then I have to go through a long, detailed explanation of who these people are and why they are so obsessed with making up lies. And only then will they maybe consider actually reading the material. Ugh.

This got me thinking. Maybe, just maybe it could be a good idea to have a prominent link on the front page of SOTT.net (say, under the Sections or Latest News divs) and on the Cass front page above the Articles div. It could have the title "Defamation and Lies Against <website name>" or similar. Contained therein could be a small summary that addresses the most common and ridiculous claims. The cult claim, the lottery scam claim, etc. You could have just one debunking page or two slightly different pages, where the Cassiopaea one can debunk more Cass-specific lies such as 2012, the Cs being Laura and other things twisted out of context.

An official debunking page that calls the lies out and is there for everyone to see. This wouldn't affect the lies being told and the activities of the petty tyrants, but it's not about the petty tyrants. It's a way to offer a clear, concise explanation for the new seeker that they otherwise won't find until they dig deep into the forum and find this thread -- and have the patience to read it despite having their head already full of lies about SOTT/Cass etc. That's a lot less wasted energy on playing into the hands of petty tyrants and trying to rehash old explanations and defend ridiculous statements on every tinfoil hat COINTELPRO feeding ground ... er, I mean forum, out there. Anyone can view the debunking page, it's there for anyone to point to, or be referred to. Also quite handy for Facebook, friends, family members who think you're part of a cult etc. Petty tyrants will be petty tyrants, but seekers can at least have both sides of the coin and can make up their own mind.

Do you think a debunking page is worth doing?
 
Laura said:
Nathan said:
Do you think a debunking page is worth doing?

That's what this is:

http://cassiopaea-cult.com/

GREAT idea!! Do you plan to post the letter from your attorney regarding the 1970 incident? When I first joined this group, I did a search on your name...and like many, I found all the defamopages. Of course my first observation was the fact that there was not ONE SHRED of evidence against you to be found among megs of accusatory rhetoric. The first thing I checked out where the "assault" claims, and I found that letter from your attorney....then I verified it.

That right there did it for me! PROOF POSITIVE that a teenage girl SUCCESSFULLY defended herself against a 40+ year old attacker...both during the attack, and later in court. The majority of young women in those situtions do not prevail, and some don't even survive.

The fact that someone would try to use that against you 40+ years later tells me EXACTLY what these people are and what they're trying to do. Thanks to Vincent Bridges, I admired you before I even introduced myself ...that meat mallet was just soooo Thor.

Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to dig up data like we do...so I'd give it all to them on the new page.
 
Guardian said:
Unfortunately, not everyone has the ability to dig up data like we do...so I'd give it all to them on the new page.

Thanks. I'll have to find that stuff. It's in a directory somewhere.
 
Hi Nathan, Laura's post and that website should answer your question, but something else caught my eye:

Nathan said:
Speaking of what's productive and what's counter-productive, this made me think of various friends who I've suggested read The Wave and Adventures With Cassiopaea online. I give them a few minutes and their response is often, "Who is this Laura? She sounds like a crazy cult leader." I say, "What makes you think that?" They say, "Oh, before I visited the website, I googled her and this site came up that debunks her." And then I have to go through a long, detailed explanation of who these people are and why they are so obsessed with making up lies. And only then will they maybe consider actually reading the material. Ugh.

Well, in this kind of situation telling them who the people are is still the same that your friends are doing when shaping their opinions based on secondhand sources. Why not ask them instead why they rely so much on a secondhand source that they are likely not familiar with more than they are familiar with the original writings? And why they trust those sources more than they'd trust their own critical thinking? Yes, it's always recommended to try and find more data on a subject of interest but only AFTER having read a given original source/material and thought it through by oneself. If your friends are not capable of it, there is a big chance your effort and suggestions can be counterproductive :)

Of course I'm skipping here the basic question if your friends showed any interest in such topics and asked you for your suggestions...
 
Guardian said:
Laura said:
Thanks. I'll have to find that stuff. It's in a directory somewhere.

http://www.cassiopaea.org/images/hayes-stmt.jpg

I think I need a better scan. That was done back in the days when our scanner was pretty primitive.
 
Laura said:
Nathan said:
Do you think a debunking page is worth doing?

That's what this is:

http://cassiopaea-cult.com/

I also think this is a great idea. So far, the site only comes at the second page in a google search when using the words "cassiopaea cult". It doesn't show up in any of the first 2 pages when using "Laura Knight Jadczyk" neither "cassiopaea", but it shows up at the top of the second page when using "Laura Knight Jadczyk cult". Problem is, V. Bridges website is always at the top when doing any search that is Laura or cassiopaea related.

I assume that by updating the page regularly as it is intended it will be bumped up eventually though. Fingers crossed.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom