From: Alfred Lehmberg <alienview.nul> Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 14:15:42 -0600 Archived: Sun, 27 Feb 2011 08:34:50 -0500 Subject: Re: Woods/Jacobs - A Salient But Missing Point >From: Gene Steinberg <gene.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 07:33:46 -0700 >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^'0600 >>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. Really, Mr. Steinberg? Really? No, Sir. He only says that, _too_. See, he's admitted the suggestion that Woods had a _dangerous_ and largely _incurable_ pathology. He's admitted that he requested her soiled undergarments. He's admitted that there existed a medieval 15th century technology that might defeat the ongoing brutal sexual assault Jacobs had hypnotically suggested to Woods, in the first place, that she had been experiencing... like a star-faring ETI would be stymied by a leather and pig- metal girdle. There are no Dremel Tools in space apparently. I digress. After these admissions he, then, allows that they were "taken out of context." No Mr. Steinberg, "taken out of context...," in this case only seems the refuge of a scoundrel. >>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? Quite so, Mr. Steinberg. I read, consider the relevance of a reply, write such, let simmer at low heat for an hour or so, proof read, make additions or subtractions, proof read again as it's made necessary by a small dyslexia often found in the left handed, then, at last, I send. I presume that you have a similar mechanism you used to write your response, eh? To your point: at the start, and _first_, you made the veiled insinuation the Woods recordings were bupkis, contrived, hacked... whatever faux-discursive word you want to use here, by a "disturbed woman", implying that her testimony is valueless. That's the long and tall. I only informed you that that was not the majority opinion of experts; three of them I wrote. Your admonition to me that you were an expert yourself is just not germane in the context provided. See how that works? You imply 'bupkis' I reply that, no, expert survey says the antithesis, you then respond that you're an expert too... the equivalent of "Oh yeah?" ... followed by _nothing_. Question is: don't _you_ read what you write before its own issuance? Not well, I advise. >>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. I'm too old, too well educated, and have too much world experience to be remotely moved by your unwelcome patronization, Mr. Steinberg. Best refrain from it in the future. >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 begs the question, Mr. Steinberg, why he has not done so vis a vis his ever-changing explanation of the affair on his web site, radio appearances nationally, showing up on podcasts (yours notably) and the platoon of ready cyber-thugs on your Paracast board doing business in the service, knowingly or unknowingly, of David Jacobs. I add that, once an admirer, I would have been in the service of David Jacobs myself, but then I heard the tapes. >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. Ha! You noticed! Yet... that raises no questions with you? I submit that should raise a flag with the disinterested fence sitter, eh? >>How can you let this slide as "He said, she said"? >Because he has a version and she has a version. Simple! That's patently ridiculous, Mr. Steinberg, where it is not wholly ludicrous. Jacobs _says_, Good Sir, where Woods _proves_! Remember in the courtroom of public opinion I conjectured where Emma Woods finishes up a compelling two year summation with dozens of numbered evidentiary items, vetted documents, expert witnesses, pictures & charts, some pertinent prosthesis, and several PowerPoint presentations? She rested in stunned silence. Further recall that Doctor Jacobs stood up, fidgeted with blank pages, cleared a sonorous throat, and said, "She's _crazy_ your honor... and, uh... the Defense rests." Beaming a George Bush "I-just-said-a-big-word" smirk, he sat back down to hearty cheers from the opposition, vested persons reflexively if inexplicably supporting Jacobs. Like I said... these positions are not remotely equivalent, Mr. Steinberg. Though, they are _forced_ equivalent by the statuses of the principals. You champion the manor lord... I champion the, IMO, raped virtuous maiden. Likely too much metaphor for you so don't pay too much attention, even as it is not _inaccurate_. >>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. Right... well, let me just redirect you in a similar fashion to what I've written above, myself. >>I eagerly anticipate one that is 'backward compatible' with the >>proclivities alluded to above. >More vomit spewing on your part. Really! Really, Mr. Steinberg? So, requests for soiled panties, directions to don 15th century chastity belts, and hypnotic suggestions to otherwise healthy persons that they have life threatening cognitive disorders are in no way required to be explained? I submit, Sir, that were it a wife or daughter trifled in such a ham-handed manner of glib sociopathy, you'd feel differently. Too, I suspect my "vomit spewing" is your inability to make, or making, qualify, your points. >>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_ behavior. >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. Nonsense, Mr. Steinberg. I have an attitude that what waddles and quacks like a duck may indeed be a duck. Your quacking waddle indicates that you, undeniably, are a first water supporter of David Jacobs only trying to appear apart from personal attachment in the matter for pragmatic reasons and failing hugely at same. >>>There >>>is no "student" defense of Jacobs on my part, or any other >>>defense. >>_Strident_, Mr. Steinberg, strident. >It's a typo, bud! Whatever. >>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. Uh-huh, followed by another of your errant proclamations on the validity of content you are loath to address, Sir. >>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. Followed again by errant proclamation as inaccurate as it is biased. Face it, you have a dog in the hunt and should recuse. >>>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. One man's obsessive behavior is another's professional thoroughness, unwavering focus, practiced diligence, and an otherwise lauded stick-to-it-iveness, Mr. Steinberg. I suspect that all of that would be fine were it in your service, it is unfortunate that it is not. >She has created a fake >persona for herself, and used it to make herself into a >celebrity. That's an _opinion_, Mr. Steinberg. My opinion, on the other hand, is that Jacobs raped and abused the wrong gal and is in the furious process, as we speak, of trying unsuccessfully to kick a bucket of flaming lighter fluid off his foot. I'm certain he wishes that she had just walked off the set into oblivion weeping into an embroidered hanky, but surprise surprise surprise... here's a woman to stand her ground and fight. Good for her! It'll put the "next guy" on notice, eh? >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. > Rofl! "Didn't treat her properly..." IMO, raped, abused, then, in farewell when pecuniary concerns went south, _infected_ with psychological disease... >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. Well, well, well... you're already a psychologist and moral arbiter and so now you're a trial lawyer? >>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. I sympathize with your complete inability to qualify, substantiate, or even _make_ your points, and so must now disparage _my_ maturity in closing so you can declare victory and step off nose in the air. Not at this station, eh? Too, not that mature in its own right. 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