From: Gene Steinberg <gene.nul> Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:33:46 -0700 Archived: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 07:04:19 -0500 Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:22:25 =E2=88=920600 >Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >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. Actually he says that the recordings are taken out of context. >More preening irrelevancy Sir, and embarrassing for that. Your >expertise, only ever brought up by you, is not _remotely_ >germane. You are the one who referred to digital experts. You made it germane, or don't you read what you write before it spews forth? >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! You still don't get it. When someone is faced with the possibility that they might be named in a legal action, the advice of a lawyer is usually to just shut up! That puts Jacobs in a very dangerous position here, and one that anyone who faced the possibility of a lawsuit might understand. He's ignoring the advice writing what he has so far. >How can you let this slide as "He said, she said"? Because he has a version and she has a version. Simple! >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. Read my paragraph above, and Jacobs' own statement on the issue. >I eagerly anticipate one that is 'backward compatible' with the >proclivities alluded to above. More vomit spewing on your part. >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. My opinion about Jacobs and his conclusions has been expressed over and over again. You have this attitude that if someone isn't for you, they must be against you. >>There >>is no "student" defense of Jacobs on my part, or any other >>defense. >_Strident_, Mr. Steinberg, strident. It's a typo, bud! >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. More irrelevant content without substance. >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. Further irrelevant babbling. >>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? I think anyone who examines 'Woods' obsessive behavior fairly would conclude that she has issues. She has created a fake persona for herself, and used it to make herself into a celebrity. She has a Web site devoted solely to trashing Jacobs, she has written to everyone in creation on the matter and then some, posted on message boards under this fake persona and others (including ours, where she support herself under a different name), written magazine articles on gone on radio shows. All because she couldn't bring herself to just hang up the phone and stop working with an investigator whom she felt didn't treat her properly. In the end, she may have a case, but making it the sole focal point of her life isn't going to help her if she ever hopes to take it to court. >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? I realize having an adult conversation with you isn't possible. Have a nice day. Gene Steinberg 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