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

[Laura]

Somehow, I don't think "Trent Toulouse" is the guy's real name. Anyway to dig on that?

 

[Sirius]

I came across this website and post it here just in case it wasn't mentioned before:

_http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Laura_Knight_Jadczyk#Legal_troubles_and_more_2012

Somehow, I don't think "Trent Toulouse" is the guy's real name. Anyway to dig on that?

RationalWiki? Their article concerning LKJ is nefarious defamation only. Look at their logo: a brain. Looks much like a pure materialists' outlet, like EsoWatch but in English this time. Oh, too bad, the latter is gone and no longer anonymous.

 

[Gonzo]

I did a bit of digging last night. It turns out Trent Toulouse actually appears to be a real person and has a user page on the wiki which lists his research publications (_http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Tmtoulouse).

The site describes itself as follows:

About RationalWiki
Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:
1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
We welcome contributors, and encourage those who disagree with us to register and engage in constructive dialogue.

The site is actually more popular than I originally thought. I did a backlinks check and noticed quite a few sites link to it, although one would have to question the discernment or agenda of anyone who thinks this site has sufficient value to actually link to it. A quick view of the backlinks can be seen by Googling "link:rationalwiki.org -site:rationalwiki.org" (here's a link to the query http://tinyurl.com/9tqxvpy), which results in 162,000 links from other sites. For comparison, cassiopaea.org has 304,000 backlinks (http://tinyurl.com/c3pu586).

The article on Laura was created September 1, 2011 by the user Tyrannis with the additional comment "(I'm stunned. I've read about cranks but... ARGH)"

Tyrannis appears to have high level permissions on the wiki. He is listed as one of three senior sysops (_http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Category:RationalWIki_Senior_Sysops)

His info is available at _http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Tyrannis, which includes:

Editing
I am primarily a wikignome, replacing/adding templates, categorizing, fixing redirects, linking, stubbing, adding a picture here, a reference there. I have been known to churn out articles and templates periodically. I remove Conservapedia references in mainspace on sight, unless they have a very good reason to be there. I also have the ability to rename users, edit the MW namespace, and modify the abuse filter, as I'm here so often I practically blend into the scenery. I really do not care about the goings on in funspace or CP-space, let 'em rot.

Community
I do not edit WIGO:CP and am completely apathetic to the goings on there, to the point that I filter the page from Recent Changes as it is, in my view, pointless natter. I edit the bar and can often be found gibbering on other people's talk pages. I have unsuccessfully ran for moderator twice, and board once. In the days when the user rights structure was more traditional, I was elected a bureaucrat. Emotional issues and mood swings mean I have the tendency to "leave" at the drop of a hat.

Some stuff people should read (or why I am a Authortariofascist)
[1] links to article "Why Blocking People Makes the World a Better Place", written by someone named Mike Elgan (_http://www.datamation.com/networks/why-blocking-people-makes-the-world-a-better-place-1.html)
[2] links to article "How not to build inclusive communities", written by somone named Kazim (_http://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2012/08/24/how-not-to-build-inclusive-communities/)

(ir)Rational Wiki Foundation has a listing on this wiki that provides further information
_http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWiki:RationalWiki_Foundation

Incidentally, Senior sysops user Blue sits on the board of this foundation.

Gonzo

 

[Laura]

Well, maybe I'll just send the info to our atty in California and see what he thinks.

 

[Buddy]

I did a bit of digging last night. It turns out Trent Toulouse actually appears to be a real person and has a user page on the wiki which lists his research publications (_http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Tmtoulouse).

Judging by his choice of wording:

My name is Trent, I edit over at wikipedia as tmtoulouse and I edited over at conservapedia as tmtoulouse as well.

...I think that might be a pen name.

He seems to 'misbehave' a bit as well, according to standards of others he's worked for. See this Block log:

_http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Tmtoulouse

Also, he's not extremely bright. He shoves his ontology right into public view:

I am a rationalist atheist with a strong bent towards logical positivism. I am a firm believer in skepticism, materialism, the scientific method and above all else The Principle of Parsimony. I am politically liberal from the perspective of the United states.

I have recently been involved in the creation of a new "wiki." It is an attempt to create collaborative content from a rationalist, scientific perspective. It is not in "competition" with wikipedia, but rather something we hope will some day be complimentary. The site is called RationalWiki and the site can be found at RationalWiki.org.

I am fascinated by those people who have the complete opposite view on reality and the world. I have an unhealthy obsession with reading, analyzing and debating issues of paranormal, pseudoscience, origins, and the right-wing political mind set. Perhaps thats why most of my edits so far have been focused on that which exhibits this phenomenon.
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tmtoulouse

...which makes him easily vulnerable in any debate with a quantumist, assuming he holds onto his classical foundation assumptions.

For example, in An Introduction to Metaphysics, Bergson plainly describes two profound ways of 'knowing a thing', both of which are included in our forum guidelines description of objectivity.

Basically, Bergson points out how those who fail to include a method of also gaining an inner knowing, can fall prey to all possible errors related to symbolic thought and symbolic thinking.

Here's a small bit:

Henri Louis Bergson's, An Introduction to Metaphysics, pg 29-30

"The very idea of reconstituting a thing by operations practised on symbolic elements alone implies such an absurdity that it would never occur to any one if they recollected that they were not dealing with fragments of the thing, but only, as it were, with fragments of its symbol.

Such is, however, the undertaking of the philosophers who try to reconstruct personality with psychical states, whether they confine themselves to those states alone, or whether they add a kind of thread for the purpose of joining the states together. Both empiricists and rationalists are victims of the same fallacy. Both of them mistake partial notations for real parts, thus confusing the point of view of analysis and of intuition, of science and of metaphysics."

On pg 81, Bergson goes on to describe Kant's error in Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason":

Having once overlooked the ties that bind science and metaphysics to intellectual intuition, Kant has no difficulty in showing that our science is wholly relative, and our metaphysics entirely artificial. Since he has exaggerated the independence of the understanding in both cases, since he has relieved both metaphysics and science of the intellectual intuition which served them as inward ballast, science with its relations presents to him no more than a film of form, and metaphysics, with its things, no more than a film of matter. Is it surprising that the first, then, reveals to him only frames packed within frames, and the second only phantoms chasing phantoms?

He has struck such telling blows at our science and our metaphysic that they have not even yet quite recovered from their bewilderment. Our mind would readily resign itself to seeing in science a knowledge that is wholly relative, and in metaphysics a speculation that is entirely empty. It seems to us, even at this present date, that the Kantian criticism applies to all metaphysics and to all science. In reality, it applies more especially to the philosophy of the ancients, as also to the form—itself borrowed from the ancients—in which the moderns have most often left their thought. It is valid against a metaphysic which claims to give us a single and completed system of things, against a science professing to be a single system of relations; in short, against a science and a metaphysic presenting themselves with the architectural simplicity of the Platonic theory of ideas or of a Greek temple.

See what I mean? Kant was inured in the "one global truth in one global context" illusion just like so many others, but reality is quantum and I'd like to think we are learning how to talk about reality and our experiences that way.

 

[Gonzo]

If it is a nom de plume, oerhaps his real name is Peter Lipson. There's a Wikipedia entry on Conservapedia that mentions the creator of Rationalwiki as Lipson _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservapedia#RationalWiki

RationalWiki
In April 2007, Peter Lipson, a doctor of internal medicine, repeatedly attempted to edit Conservapedia's article on breast cancer to include evidence arguing against Conservapedia's claim that abortion was a major cause of the disease. Conservapedia administrators "questioned his credentials and shut off debate".[14]:3 Several editors whose accounts were blocked by Conservapedia administrators, including Lipson, started another website, RationalWiki, a satirical wiki website with articles written from a secular, progressive perspective. The site's self-stated purpose is to analyze and refute "pseudoscience", the "anti-science movement", and "crank ideas", as well as conduct "explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism" and explore "how these subjects are handled in the media."[78]

Gonzo

 

[koin]

Defending truth

Hi all,

I followed the news link at the top of the website, which lead me to amazon. (where I have now ordered that particular book)

After coming across a personal attack on Laura's name (and all her works) via a book review. I thought about how much her material has helped me through life thus far and I felt the right thing to do would be to stand up for her and her family by pointing out the incorrect assumptions made about Laura and so called "Cassiopeia cult" (which as you all know is not correct)

I saw someone had already defended her with a very emotionally loaded retort, or so it looked to me and although it may have been made with good intent, from my point of view it seemed like his reply was that of a "infuriated cult member" which is the kind of ammo defamers look for. So I went ahead and added my comment, but worded it in a way that I believe the mods would on this forum (so i hope it OK)

I also realize there are testimonials and other initiatives to fight against the slander propaganda out there, but if we all make a conscious effort to offer an alternative view point when we come across remarks such as the example I have given, I believe it would be beneficial. If my little comment in reply to that particular review can help just 1 person buy the book instead of passing it over, then it was worth the effort.

FWIW I just wanted to bring attention to this issue because every time someone who is thinking about buying one of these books or getting involved with the work get discouraged by these comments and slander, it is really a blow to truth or so I believe.

Please provide feedback if I'm wrong but if we seek out and actively defend slander against Cassiopaea material, SOTT and Laura on the net... even finding one a month to provide another point of view for the positive... would it be of benefit? Or would it stir up the hornets nest and get everyone stung so to speak?

 

[doublea1535]

Re: Defending truth

I saw someone had already defended her with a very emotionally loaded retort, or so it looked to me and although it may have been made with good intent, from my point of view it seemed like his reply was that of a "infuriated cult member" which is the kind of ammo defamers look for. So I went ahead and added my comment, but worded it in a way that I believe the mods would on this forum (so i hope it OK)

I also realize there are testimonials and other initiatives to fight against the slander propaganda out there, but if we all make a conscious effort to offer an alternative view point when we come across remarks such as the example I have given,

Much of what you are saying and asking hinges upon what that other person said and what you said. From your perspective the other person was emotional and you were not. Would others see it the same way? Do you have links to the comments in question, both yours and theirs?

 

[koin]

Re: Defending truth

Decide for yourself.

See here.

 

[anart]

Koin, I merged your topic with the already existing discussion on defamation.

 

[doublea1535]

Re: Defending truth

Decide for yourself.

Is there another way?

I saw someone had already defended her with a very emotionally loaded retort, or so it looked to me and although it may have been made with good intent, from my point of view it seemed like his reply was that of a "infuriated cult member"

There is that saying, never argue with a fool because at a distance someone might not be able to tell the difference. I think he makes some good points, and should've just stuck with the facts. The point, in my opinion, is not to argue with the OP, because that would be a waste of time. It's like you said, making it so another person who comes across the review gets the full story. He seems emotional, but not infuriated.

For instance, the OP bought the book hoping it would be strictly about 9/11 apparently, when what Laura did was show how it was part of a larger picture.

I also realize there are testimonials and other initiatives to fight against the slander propaganda out there, but if we all make a conscious effort to offer an alternative view point when we come across remarks such as the example I have given, I believe it would be beneficial. If my little comment in reply to that particular review can help just 1 person buy the book instead of passing it over, then it was worth the effort.

I think your comment was good, FWIW. Especially pointing out that he himself does what he accuses Laura of doing. He is "rambling [about] disjointed theories or accounts of various things in history that are in no way related". And how about the fact that he is offering his opinion on a well-researched book, when he himself can't even be bothered to do any actual research on Laura? It's like criticizing the chef when you can't even make toast, you don't have a whole lot of ground to stand on.

 

[Laura]

Best thing to do is to just report those kinds of reviews as "abuse" because that is what they are.

 

[koin]

Re: Defending truth

I saw someone had already defended her with a very emotionally loaded retort, or so it looked to me and although it may have been made with good intent, from my point of view it seemed like his reply was that of a "infuriated cult member"

There is that saying, never argue with a fool because at a distance someone might not be able to tell the difference. I think he makes some good points, and should've just stuck with the facts. The point, in my opinion, is not to argue with the OP, because that would be a waste of time. It's like you said, making it so another person who comes across the review gets the full story. He seems emotional, but not infuriated.

For instance, the OP bought the book hoping it would be strictly about 9/11 apparently, when what Laura did was show how it was part of a larger picture.

Haha, that's a great saying and I understand your point. I took a great deal of care in writing my reply comment for fear of causing more harm then good and in future will ensure I really take a hard look at the situation before I reply.

I also realize there are testimonials and other initiatives to fight against the slander propaganda out there, but if we all make a conscious effort to offer an alternative view point when we come across remarks such as the example I have given, I believe it would be beneficial. If my little comment in reply to that particular review can help just 1 person buy the book instead of passing it over, then it was worth the effort.

I think your comment was good, FWIW. Especially pointing out that he himself does what he accuses Laura of doing. He is "rambling [about] disjointed theories or accounts of various things in history that are in no way related". And how about the fact that he is offering his opinion on a well-researched book, when he himself can't even be bothered to do any actual research on Laura? It's like criticizing the chef when you can't even make toast, you don't have a whole lot of ground to stand on.

Yes he certainly did not do his own credibility any favors. He seemed so focused of the localized subject matter that he failed to make connections that Laura so painstakingly brought to light.

Best thing to do is to just report those kinds of reviews as "abuse" because that is what they are.

This is the very first thing I did before considering a reply. Maybe with enough 'report abuse' clicks we can get it removed.

For anyone who has not read the aforementioned review, feel free to read it here and if you decide for yourself (which of course is the only way ;) ) that it is inappropriate click report abuse via the page or click here.

 

[Z...]

I just stumbled upon this page

The Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind is a religious scam, the head of this ‘church’ Laura Knight Jadczyk has recently stated on her forum cassiopaea that;

The only reason the Fellowship exists is because we realized we may need a legal structure in this legally structured world, i.e. using their own weapons against them. We realized that we already lived a certain lifestyle due to what we had learned, we only needed to formalize it WITH THE PROVISO that we can adjust the formalization as we learn more. Thus, the Statement of Principles incorporates a section on modifications and has version numbers.
Laura Knight Jadczyk March 2011

[link to cassiopaea.org]

So she established the religion as a cover, which, therefore, completely invalidates the entire statement of principals that declares its self as a religion

[link to paleochristianity.org]

BUT, she charges subscriptions to join her religion so she is scamming her members.
and of course doesn’t declare on her ‘Fellowship of the Cosmic Mind’ site that it’s pupose is to provide a legal structure’ for her operation which for all intents and purposes seems to be a cult which declares its self as the only path to truth.

This isn’t a legal stucture (if that is a good excuse for establishing a whole religion, its hardly ethical) its a MONEY SPINNER

So I wonder if after this recent admission if she is going to return all the money to her subscribers who forked out on the basis that they were joining a religion? It costs $10 to join and you are also encouraged to donate!

[link to paleochristianity.org]
Oh and there is also the added benefit of having religious status.
This is a scam

What dictionaries say about scam:
1. A ploy by a shyster to raise money.
2., A fraudulent business scheme. To scam means to victimize: deprive of by deceit; “He swindled me out of my inheritance”; “She defrauded the customers who trusted her”; “the cashier gypped me when he gave me too little change”
3. A confidence trick, confidence game, or con for short (also known as a scam) is an attempt to intentionally mislead a person or persons (known as the mark) usually with the goal of financial or other gain. The confidence trickster, con man, scam artist or con artist often works with an accomplice called the shill, who tries to encourage the mark by pretending to believe the trickster

 

[Lisa Guliani]

"It's really amazing to see how persistent these few individuals are in their drive to attack everything we do. It is also very frustrating and hurtful for Laura to have to read the same old lies repeated over and over again. On the bright side, these people are so petty, so small, and really, so insignificant, that we need not worry about them or the lies they publish. Of course, we will do whatever we have to to combat them, but again, there is not much we have to do when they are forced to resort to creating multiple blogs with the same content in the ass-end of cyber-space that only the bottom-dwellers frequent."
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I agree with Percival and Anart's comments on this. 13 fake blogs? And these fake blogs come from precisely the SAME person ( Weidner) who told me via email several years ago that he was not involved in defaming Laura Knight-Jadczyk, or Ark, or SOTT or the Cass forum. The same person who also lied about his close friendship/alliance with Jeff Rense, also exposed as a liar and disinfo artist. Weidner refused to publicly apologize for his role in the defamation back then ( and wouldn't even admit to it) and he wouldn't provide requested documentation with verifiable, supporting links to substantiate his claims and assertions that he has not been involved in the ongoing defamation of Laura,, SOTT, CASS. Instead, he pointed the finger at his buddy, Vincent Bridges. What a total piece of work these people are. They seem to have made a career of defaming Laura's work. I'm so sorry this is still going on, Laura and all.