From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:22:25 -0600 Archived: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 09:17:14 -0500 Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >From: Gene Steinberg <gene.nul> >To: post.nul: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:44:40 -0700 >Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:44:40 -0700 >Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 09:25:23 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >>Stuff and _flaccid_ nonsense, Sir. Your pompous proclamation >>only makes a _lesser_ 'such and so'. >Your comment doesn't alter the accuracy of my statements about >audio editing. Nor does it detract from the _irrelevancy_ of same, Mr. Steinberg! Jacobs admits to _everything_. Where the admission is not forthcoming, he's on tape self-admitted. >And, yes, I can claim to be knowledgeable on the >subject, since I have done both analog and digital audio editing >for several decades, and I did learn a thing or two along the >way. More preening irrelevancy Sir, and embarrassing for that. Your expertise, only ever brought up by you, is not _remotely_ germane. >>Moreover, all of your above is stupefyingly immaterial given >>that the core issue is _plain_ and admitted. >>The core issue, Mr. Steinberg, is that a woman with every >>expectation of professional behavior and in a state of extremely >>high suggestibility... was knowingly, gleefully, and >>_admittedly_ thrown under a bus of wild-card psychological >>pathology at the convenience of he whom you so stridently >>defend. >The real core issue is that there are two sides to every story, >often more, and most of the information out there covers one >side. Facile. Simplistic. Superficial, Mr. Steinberg. Both sides have explicated for years: Woods in factual audits and largely uncontested recorded data sets, and Jacobs, less effectively, in angry proclamations regarding his non-expert speculations of Woods "mental illness", supported, it is said, by a host of mental health professionals... all entirely on board, mind you, with hypnotic suggestions to Woods that Woods had a _severe_ psychological pathology and that she required professional care. Excuse me?! C'mon! How can you let this slide as "He said, she said"? Additionally, I submit that Jacobs has had ample opportunity to cover his 'side', such that it is, in the last year _anyway_, and, moreover, has a host of celebrants, such as yourself, to cover a... let's call it a "weak procedural backfield" littered with inappropriate, unprofessional, and unsettling proclivities... to be kind. >Jacobs says he is working on a greatly expanded defense of >his position, and I await its release before coming to any final >decision about this. I eagerly anticipate one that is 'backward compatible' with the proclivities alluded to above. >More to the point, stop making up stories about me. First? You must stop making up stories about me making up stories about you! You are defined by your entirely one-sided activities and expressions, Mr. Steinberg. Don't count on me to cover or make excuses for _your_ action. >There >is no "student" defense of Jacobs on my part, or any other >defense. _Strident_, Mr. Steinberg, strident. Too, we must agree to disagree, it seems, as the more _plausible_ perception is the you have provided a defacto defense historically, ongoingly, and currently. You provide defense as it pertains to soft-ball questioning on your pod cast. You provide defense in the canted operation of your message board. You are all defense brushing off valid concerns regarding psychological abuse as, say, 'two sides to every story'... I _sincerely_ hope there are no women living in your stair-well regularly beat up by their husbands. >I have made it clear that I do not agree with his >conclusions about hybrid aliens, the value of hypnotic >regression (by phone or otherwise) to recover lost >memories, and I also believe Jacobs should have brought None of this is germane, remotely relevant, or in any way pertinent, Mr. Steinberg. Your observations are noted as tepid 20/20 hindsight, at best. At worst, what? We can go there if you want. >a mental health therapist on board when he first started >working with 'Woods', a woman who is clearly very, very troubled. You are basing your estimation of "troubled", on _what_ exactly, Mr. Steinberg? Jacobs' diagnosis as supported by a team of un- named mental health experts entirely... OK... with in-expert hypnotists hypnotically suggesting dangerous pathologies to persons in their charge? Or maybe you have some clinical experience of your own. Stay in a Holiday Inn recently? >>All of _that_ is concurrent, subsequent and antecedent to, IMO >>and in the opinion of significant others, other rapes, assaults. >>and malfeasant infidelities. >>Clearer, Sir, is that your credulity stunning and inexplicable >>denial is indicative of the place where you have _your_ head, >>eh? >And so another rant from Lehmberg without substance and hardly a >shred of accuracy. Yeah - uh-huh... and so another dodge from Steinberg ironically sans a similar substance but _fraught_ with all manner of wholly irrelevant accuracies... this is going on a little longer than you'd gotten used to at the Paracast board, eh? alienview.nul www.AlienView.net AVG Blog -- http://alienviewgroup.blogspot.com/ U F O M a g a z i n e -- www.ufomag.com Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp