2009-04-11
{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces. }
{My interactions with Craig Hawley began on the Coloradoan in early February 2008. This is the epilogue to that exchange, most of it carried out on Facebooks.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Thanks to you, looks to me like the Collegian has finally taken on some editorial control of their message boards by applying approval of postings. And because they're just students, they don't always get around to it. Kind of like their radio station, which I love but will no longer tune my clock radio to; it's been known to have long stretches of dead air (silence), like in the early morning hours when a clock radio is supposed to wake you up.
Also, thanks to you, my website has had many minor improvements that I leave in your capable hands of discovering. Most of them are in the "Hee-Haw-ley Index", whereby I've gone through my files and filled in most of my postings from our days on the Coloradoan.
http://www.maxbridges.us/111_rant/HeeHawleyIndex.php
We were both right regarding whether or not your words should be posted on my website. I was right that it wasn't my responsibility to preserve your words, that your words weren't the best thought out or written, and that your postings overwhelm. I mean, your daily average was above 11 at the Coloradoan before your departure and was at least that at times at the Collegian; there is no way I could keep up with that (if the thought ever crossed my mind, which it didn't.)
You were right that your words do indeed depict a distinct contrast to my own and maybe it is unfair not to publish more of them in context. As part of my off-line writing process, I sometimes saved your postings so that I could refer to them and quote you accurately. In doing this latest editing pass, I found several of your saved postings that I've decided to re-publish, giving you full attribution of course.
As the Hee-Haw-ley Index shows, you are directly responsible for nearly 200 entries that I made in this body of work.
It is a pity that you weren't paying attention to what I was doing or the advice I was giving you. You, too, could have improved your game, advanced out of the Little Leagues, and amassed a body of words to show for it outside of the flaky databases belonging to others, where they can go missing, the links lost, and the database platforms swapped.
I apologize that your participation on my website doesn't show you in a good light. You come across as the baffoon who doesn't even know it.
It doesn't have to be that way in volume 2. In the Jeffersonian-Adams freedom debates of our time, a higher level of skill is required. You have the tools. You have the desire. You just don't yet have the patience of a true wordsmith to edit, edit, edit to hone the point.
Will there be a volume 2? Well...
With the anniversary of 9/11 this week, the fact remains that you still have not stepped up to the plate on my challenge: validate the 9/11 coincidence theories and debunk 9/11 truth. I put my money where my mouth was. I called your bluff.
You know why I persist. It was mandated to me from above. Why do you resist? Maybe as the Hee-Haw-ley Index shows, it was also mandated to you from above so that I would have a foil for making my points.
I would like volume 2 to be several classes better than volume 1. Stick to your 9/11 position unless my argumentation and/or your research convince you otherwise, but let us do it as educated adults and reflect that in our writings. Let this be meaty worthy fodder for all our websites and all our blogs (all our published articles, all our published books.)
As my mandate went, feed my sheep.
Maxwell
Sorry Max they are having Server problems at the Collegian. And of course all you just said about me I take umbrage with and refute , and assign same to you.
Only I did it in a paragraph. LOL!
I just posted something at the collegian a day ago. But now if you'll notice the login link doesn't display on the page when you log in. They are having major server problems as I said.
I think the posts being screened came directly because of your new friend WRB. I called the office and they took a bunch of his posts off. He got even more angry and started spamming and trolling the forum. For all I know he had his IP banned.
I have been active in many other threads over many forums so I never miss any one forum. Although since ZI have so many friends at CSU now I do have a special place for CSU in my heart.
I even have some friends on Facebook that are on the Collegian Staff.
Art Montoya said he would decline but we parted as people on the opposite sides of the political spectrum and he said he respected me and I him.
I think he has done a hell of a lot better job then McSwine. Many of the kids at CSU have my personal E-Mail and we keep in touch.
So you are certainly entitled to your opinion. You have the right to be wrong in America and in my opinion you are exercising that right. LOL!
I simply will not stand idly by and watch Liberals try to indoctrinate our youth in their socialist , and globalist ways.
I am a culture warrior and will keep this up until they box me for good.
I am telling you that I have had a few kids at CSU actually tell me they changed their minds and politics because of my arguments and insights.
You can't buy that kind of feeling. So it is because of those that I convince to change for the better that I will continue my quest to enlighten future generations.
Nice talking to ya Max.
Live Large
Craig
Your right I don't edit much more then spell check. I have always thought on my feet and done very well. In college I never lost a debt.
I even won a pro pot debate at a religious school who did not share my feelings.
And really I don't care on way or another whether my words are kept by you or the universe. My Father always taught me to stand behind my words and actions and take personal responsibility.
I could never go anonymous and betray my code. There was a time when a mans word was his bond.
I am still that generation. I am going to go with my Dad ( who is very elderly ) to his hometown where he will show me my history.
I will be glad to go and be able to tell my Dad I never let down those principles he taught me.
I know everyone now days lies so often it is not a big deal. In the fifteen years I have been with my wife we have never lied to eachother. NOT ONCE!
No little white lies or anything else. No this has caused a few fights , but it has created a bond that is unbreakable.
I'll give you an example. A relative stayed with us and did some things that were not right. They called my wife and told her a lie about me and told me that she was going to kick me out of the house because they were relatives.
Of course this didn't happen because as I said we have an unshakable bond of pure trust. It is something I would never betray.
Anyway I am sure I will be debating you again at the collegian.
TTYL
Craig
Maybe it's just you Max. I posted to the Collegian and got my comments on.
It's a shame WRB had a meltdown and had to be kicked off the forum. LOL!
That guy was nuts. Seems there had been many complaints about him other than me. He was also taunting the Collegian staff.
You really screwed up letting him link your site to his.
Now people , ( and there are already a myriad that think your nuts for your beliefs ) will think you espouse his views. They will google his rants at the Collegian and will tie you to his comments about fags and wetting your self and all the other incoherent tirades.
Even though I think your ideas are nuts at least in the past I thought of you as intelligent. This is not an intelligent move.
He is already under the eyes of several law enforcement agencies for his veiled threat against my step daughter.
FYI they caught the first guy from long ago. I can't say anything further but I was satisfied.
It's amazing what the police can do in cyberspace with a judges approval.
Hope you wake up and cut ties with WRB or you will be completely ostracized by any thinking person online.
See I told you. You seem to have gotten letters from people at CSU attributing WRB's posts to you. I told you he would bring you down man.
Also what happened at the Coloradoan? Did you get banned?
Did you get banned from the Collegian? Or was it just someone from CSU sending you E-Mails.
I see you had to pull the link to e mail you from your blog.
If I were you I would sever ties to WRB. He is causing you a lot of heart ache for noting.
I am sure I will see you around some forum somewhere.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
First allow me to express my apologies. It seems I fell three emails behind. Actually, I've composed two drafts to each; I just haven't finished and sent them. With age I'm learning that, whereas it can be healthy to write what's on my mind to get it out and quantify it, it is not always wise to send them. Sometimes, timing in planting seeds is everything. This email has drawn from those unfinished emails.
I'll endeavor to answer your questions with candor. Unlike you, I have not been banned from the Coloradoan. This is documented in the missing Coloradoan postings that I've dug up and published. In fact, I have a blog in their new system that I infrequently post to. I'm still contemplating how I want to use the various blog spaces I've since acquired.
Funny that you should tell me to sever ties with WRB. Whether unwittingly or on purpose, it was you, Evelyn, and Sgt. Asshat who were labeling WRB's postings as mine and establishing ties that didn't previously exist. That false association got me several stupid emails through my website that called me dirty names. I can still be contacted, just not through the insecure form that I had implemented. Its main flaw was in not validating an email address or contact point (like facebook) from the sender, so I couldn't write them back to tell them to take a walk into a cold mountain lake.
If you must know, as long as we were being labeled as being part of a conspiracy, WRB contacted me and I replied. Among other things, I told him that, although I respected him for taking you on and his technique was initially humorous, I did not approve of the manner in which he assumed your alias or that of others and rode you. It would get to the point where even I would turn on him. I imparted sage advice in better ways for taking you on, like the unfinished Lessons from Karl Rove's school of online debate.
As for the Collegian, I have to admit that over the long weekend when the database was flaky I had the impression that my IP had been banned. I was going to congratulate you on having succeeded in banning me and winning. Although I later saw some of my posts trickle out much delayed, one of the IP addresses that I use frequently hasn't been able to post reliably the few times I've tested it. I am taking it as a sign that I should move on and away from this Collegian addiction.
In the Collegian game, it wasn't that you were playing your cards well. You weren't. Once you saw where things were going with WRB, you shouldn't have engaged him further. Yes, he was becoming rather annoying. But you lost your cool and in your self-righteousness and self-justification, you began (again) broadcasting more about yourself than you should have.
In my earlier Coloradoan missives to you, one of the re-occurring themes was me trying to teach you about your irresponsibility on the internet. I did it softly; and then I did it in embarrassing ways. You didn't learn anything. I apologize to you for the embarrassing lessons I meted out.
In the WRB skirmish, I just couldn't help myself, jumped in, and tag teamed you for two or three posts to jab at the weak flank you exposed. In the past, you've proven yourself unable to discern different authors, which was proven again when I interjected myself in a manner you misconstrued as being WRB.
I wrote something sarcastic to the effect: although we can get it by googling and stalking, why don't you save us lots of time and effort by giving us [a list of personal details from your step-daughter's major to her major likes and dislikes]; we'd soon be her new best friends and coming home to meet the Folkers. The cutting sarcasism in the context should have been a huge clue regarding how you were being played.
A careful parsing of my words shows that I did not threaten you either, although you hype it as such. As is your MOS, not only did you not get the message of how much of an idiot you were being with data about you and your family and getting it on with a self-proclaimed Worthless Roving Bum, you turn yourself into the victim and twist the words "can google and stalk" into "going to google and stalk."
In the short-lived third post that didn't survive many minutes in the forum -- not sure if you saw it --, I wrote that "can" implies ability, but not intention that your deliberate rewording twists it into. You need to worry about me only to the extent that if I ever convince you of the crimes of our American leaders, your world view may go up in smoke and may necessitate a change of behavior on your part.
Let the record stand corrected. However annoying WRB was in aping you through your alias, WRB did ~NOT~ threaten you. Should you ever get it on with WRB in the future, that "can google and stalk" comment that you hype as a threat should not be associated with him or used against him. (Nobody likes to see an innocent person accused of something they did not do.)
Now that you know the comment was mine and given our history and the re-occurring theme of internet irresponsibility, you should view it as another of those embarrassing lessons, which not only got you riled up and worried to the point of crying wolf to the authorities (even if limited to the Collegian) but also backfired on the teacher.
I made a stupid mistake that I apologize for. Kind of like me pre-maturely sinking the 8-ball. I lose; you win. The IP address I posted it from may be banned.
Lately, I haven't had much to say in the Collegian forums anyway and haven't tried. I've got better things to do. I've filled up the Chronicles of Hey-seus arguing with you. If I'm truly banned, it is merely God telling me that our go-rounds in that forum have run their course and have become an unnecessary distraction. Other plans await me.
As an aside, your "Politically Incorrect" blog that has grown most stale used to encourage and permit comments. I posted a comment that took you to the woodshed for your unloving internet irresponsibility to your family. This was a further major clue about who had attacked your flank with the "can google and stalk" comment. Interesting that you not only deleted my comment but also turned off the ability to add comments to your rarely used blog. On two fronts, your past "beliefs" are confronted with contradictions. On the Eastern Front, you can no longer say that the Collegian won't take any editorial action and isn't a "completely free speech zone." On the Western Front, the purging of responses and disabling of comments on your website kind of makes you a hypocrite for all of the shit you've given me.
You wrote three emails ago:
"My Father always taught me to stand behind my words and actions and take personal responsibility. I could never go anonymous and betray my code. There was a time when a mans word was his bond."
Point 1: If you really stood behind your words and took personal responsibility for them, you would recognize that the starting point of that obligation begins well before you hit "post" or "send" while you are writing the words. It would cause you to think twice (or thrice) before posting once. It would be less about thinking on your feet in the heat of the moment and more about what the longevity of your words can mean when stored for ages in public forums. Your personal responsibility would extend to (a) writing words worth archiving {and reading in the future} and (b) writing in a manner that wouldn't blow-back on yourself or THOSE YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
Point 2: Your father should have taught you the difference between taking responsibility and acting responsibly. In the former, you willingly suffer the consequences for misguided actions. In the latter, you've learned lessons from the former and avoid those when possible going forward. What is the fire-drill count on scares you've shocked into your step-daughter by having to contact authorities and forum owners over the asinine online brawling that you've engage in?
Point 3: Go anonymous and betray your code?!! What crock! There is no correlation between the two. A while back a posting was made about historical psuedonyms such as those used by one of our founding fathers, Benjamin Franklin. When the time was right, he took credit for his work under those aliases {and took responsibility for his words}.
Point 4: In all of the online forums OUTSIDE of Reseda, CA or the regions of the country {or world} that members of your family are calling their home port, post up a storm under your real name, Mr. Hawley, for all I or your family cares. But in the regions that could cause family blow-back, follow the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive actions {in the form of taking responsibility and acting responsibly} by posting under an alias, if you post at all.
Point 5: Using an alias isn't lying, otherwise all of your comic book hereos {and the actors who play them} would not be lauded as such. An alias simply isn't telling everything you know. The right psuedonym could be your Mark Twain, one that represents you and takes responsibility for your words, without impacts to Samuel Clemens or his loved ones.
Two emails ago, you wrote:
"You really screwed up letting [WRB] link your site to his."
It is just a link. I didn't tell him to put it there. Unless you taunt him and give him lots of fodder to publish there, the site probably won't get much traffic and the link to the middle of one of our discussions on my site won't be followed.
You wrote in your last email:
"Hope you wake up and cut ties with WRB or you will be completely ostracized by any thinking person online."
Is that a threat? :)
WRB's juvenile online behavior needs to be reprimanded. But I'm not worried what thinking people online will think when they see a link from his "Craig Hawley is a Psychotic" blog to the Chronicles of Hey-sues on mine. You'll suffer worse in the public's assessment, particularly if WRB refines how he uses that blog. Unless you start posting uncontrollably on the Collegian everywhere and all the time with extremist fascist positions, WRM won't have food to feed his blog; it'll go stale.
I keep mentioning the longevity of the internet that you keep underestimating.
Whereas WRB's blog could go stale, it won't be forgotten by Google. In some future contentious online encounter, you are destined to have your name googled, and the "Craig Hawley is a Psychotic" blog will be part of the search results, if not the Chronicles of Hey-sues as well. An impression of you emerges that might not be that flattering.
You wrote three emails ago:
"And really I don't care on way or another whether my words are kept by you or the universe."
I think you are lying {mostly to yourself} about not caring if your words are kept. If you didn't care, you wouldn't write... not even for the "few kids at CSU (who) actually tell (you) they changed their minds and politics because of (your) arguments and insights." Mr. Hawley, if you really wanted to impart learned wisdom, recognize that when you post to databases, those "few kids" aren't limited to the here and now. What first impression does your writing leave {again and again to those who Google you}? Shouldn't you be thinking about leaving a body of work worth reading and savoring with the additional effort spent writing it, editing it, and crafting it? Otherwise, you sell your message short as if you had walked up to the debate podium, slouched all over it, and did a two minute long pot-smoker's hack right into the microphone.
(Speaking of debate podium, what are the latest details on your public speaking engagement at CSU?)
In the first sentence of your first paragraph of your first email, you wrote:
"Your right I don't edit much more then spell check."
Obviously. "Your" should have been "you're", a mistake you make constantly. "Right" should have been followed by a period or semicolon.
Out of the gate, you undercut you and your arguments. It is as if sexy Sarah Palin had gone out to the podium of the RNC and delivered her speech while chomping on a big wad of bubble gum and farted everytime she smiled devilishly.
Your first paragraph goes on with:
"I have always thought on my feet and done very well."
Stop right there!
Written communication is not about "thinking on your feet." It is about thinking. It is about reflecting your thoughts accurately into words that others can follow. You have more time while writing to be correct in all things. You even have the time for multiple drafts, to attempt different approaches to see which one hits the mark.
Your first paragraph concluded with:
"In college I never lost a debt."
"Debt" should have been "debate." Now that I have thoroughly trashed your first paragraph, I'll refrain from further nit-picking on your writing. One would hope that you got the message.
In public speaking, confidence, tone, delivery, and posture can be more important than the arguments themselves {as we can see from Gov. Sarah Palin}, and nobody can hear the difference between "your" and "you're."
Writing isn't the same thing as public speaking. Spelling, grammar, and typing are those mechanics of online debate that assist with first impressions and differentiate between learned scholar {of life and circumstances} and backwoods hill-billy. They alone won't win an online debate, but they can certainly contribute to losing one when they are lacking, if they don't in extreme cases disqualify the message and messenger from {any} serious consideration.
I suppose that the length of this email offers several tests of you and your character. The most obvious test will be to see if you even read this far. It'll also test your ability to recognize well-intentioned advice, even if delivered rather harshly. Your ability to follow your father's advice is tested in how much you own up to having a misbehaving hand in the transpiring events that, to hear you spin it, had your whole family worried about safety.
I hope this message's admission helps you sleep better at night, but I also hope it causes a Bush Doctrine on your postings, whereby you pre-emptively change your online ways to avoid the senseless brawling that could give different outcome with different participants.
You still don't get it Max.
You pointed out many of my flaws. And your right about some. I misspell , I do not use proper grammar sometimes , and I say what is on my mind and do not sit there like you trying to rewrite something ten times so it will be perfect for the ages.
FYI there were quite a few people from CSU ( students ) that complained about you and WRB. So I doubt my complaint was the one that broke the camels back.
I feel it important to point out that with all my flaws , I was more effective then you.
You tout your self as an intellectual that is almost anal retentive in his quest to have perfect posts that are grammatically perfect and will stand the test of time. Unless you and I get elected President or something , no one of note will be Googling either of our posts.
However I with all my flaws managed to convince quite a few students to change their mind on Liberals like you. I also like to think I and others helped get the kids at CSU so riled up they formed the Ram Republic. I am very proud of this.
Before that publication the students at CSU were being indoctrinated by their paper not informed. McSwane had destroyed responsible and unbiased reporting at CSU and he was not serving the student body , but rather serving a portion of them and trying to denigrate , intimidate and destroy the other students that were not flaming Liberals.
Now the students at CSU at least have a source to combat Liberalism in campus. So balance was brought to the campus. I also consider ti an honor to have been asked to write a few articles for them.
So bottom line is ( if you are honest enough to admit it ) , is i reached m,any more people than you did in that forum. I had influence and changed minds. I made new friends , some of them the Liberals I mentioned.
Others I have not made friends with but we respect eachother. I have not seen anyone at the Collegian or CSU really side with you or come to your defense and unless you have something under one of your many fake names , no on is buying your 911 theory.
So in the long run I have been effective and you have not. I have personal friends at CSU now I did not before I started posting. I have changed minds and political opinions. I have written , at students request , for their publication ( a huge honor ).
So I acquiesce to your critique of my spelling and grammar errors.
But with all those errors it seems that bottom line is I was more effective at communicating and convincing people of my position then you were.
Of course I think that is because I have truth and you do not. But either way you can not dispute the simple fact that i have been more effective then you.
We both use to many words to express ourselves. Perhaps that is because we are not from the sound bite generation.
Only one last thing. You can sometimes get to cute for your own good. I think that was honorable of you to admit it was you that made that stalking comment and not WRB. But just as you don't apologize for constantly ragging on me about my information , I do not apologize for confusing you with WRB.
It is you that plays games with nick and changes them. You also in the past before WRB had stolen nicks of mine and others pretending to be us. All these behaviors are responsible for your being confused with WRB.
Trying to say you used the term could stalk instead of will stalk , are splitting hairs. It is a veiled threat , which is what I said. Any prosecutor or cop would say the same thing , and in fact they did. If I said I could kill the President I would still go to jail.
Also it must have been that IP they banned. I guess they thought you were threatening also. So as I said you get to cute for your own good.
I do like debating you though. And who knows I may be posting under an assumed nick now also. LOL!
The beauty is , you would never know. ;)
Nice talking to you Max. We will just have to agree to disagree. I will never accept the 911 theory inside job mantra and I will always fight Liberalism which is killing my country. I am sure we will verbally duel again.
Your Worthy Opponent.
Craig Hawley
P.S. See when we are not posturing to win a debate online we can actually get along civilly. I don't hate you Max I hate no one. I just feel that people liek you have ideas that are dangerous to my country and to future generations. I know you feel the opposite , but what kind of a man and patriot would I be if I did not try to counter and discredit what I feel is a threat to my country. I bid you adieu sir
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Just like your military experience had mission creep into Vietnam and both Gulf Wars, I believe that most of your comments have suffered the same fate, starting with:
- "I with all my flaws managed to convince quite a few students to change their mind on Liberals like you."
- "I also like to think I and others helped get the kids at CSU so riled up they formed the Ram Republic."
- "I also consider ti an honor to have been asked to write a few articles for them."
It went from "a few students" to "quite a few students." I went from being a registered Republican to being a liberal. Your mind seems to think you were instrumental in the RamRepublic, which has only had four publications since its inception in 10/2007 and only four rack locations on campus, making it a weak gadfly of a "source for combatting liberalism on campus." Maybe if only you had written more for them. Despite being asked to write a few articles, I've only seen two of your articles, both of them rambling forgettable sophomoric pieces of misassociated emotions and patriotism lacking substance. Remind me sometime to critique your "Liberalism is Destroying America" article, where you equate erroneously liberalism with a lack of ethics and morals, which surprisingly the Republican Conservatives in the highest offices of our land and on the GOP ticket for the same are the poster children of amoral role models.
You wrote:
"quite a few people from CSU ( students ) that complained about you and WRB"
Because you, Reg Indy, and Sgt. Asshat conflated me with WRB erroneously, I don't doubt that complaints were high at semester's start. (I'll just attribute those lies and smears to the morals and ethics of conservatives that you so champion.) Excluding you and your echo chamber, complaints against me online were only in the "few people" range. I'm sure the complaints were consistently higher for you, because you are a flame magnet. As the undie thread bears witness, your detractor numbers have always been higher than mine. You've had very energetic independent opponents like Sk8rgirl, WRB, "craig hawley sucks," "LOL headstabber", and me. Let's also not forget the independent blogs created to highlight your unflattering words, like "Craig Hawley is Psychotic," which might start coming up in google results and could be maintained with a read-only presence in the Collegian.
You wrote:
"I have not seen anyone at the Collegian or CSU really side with you or come to your defense and unless you have something under one of your many fake names , no on is buying your 911 theory."
I'll address your poorly written WTFBS (wishful thinking false bold statement) later: "no on is buying your 911 theory."
Mr. Hawley, I take offense at your fake name comment. I've consistently taken responsibility for my alias usage, and you know it. I've even taken responsibility for words when remaining silent and perpetuating a false association might have benefited me more.
(a) When it was happening, you weren't MENSA smart enough to recognize from the writing style and themes such alias usage despite blatant clues and pre-confirmation on my website.
(b) When the ruse was revealed, you over-react and over-equate all unfamiliar aliases into one despite admissions, denials, and evidence to the contrary that provide an unmistakably clear picture of the lines of demarkation between individuals.
(c) Your fake name versus real name comments are disengenuous across a wide spectrum, starting with them being out of step (and on another street if not in a dead-end alley) from advice given by internet security professionals. And you call yourself a mall security guard... I mean, body guard with security clearance? Zooming out, the frequency with which you relied on a misguided real name alias argument to attack the poster and not the posting demonstrates a profound weakness in your positions, all the more so when applied selectively and hypocritically only to those outside your echo chamber. (I know this will make you laugh, but for all of the information revealed by you on MySpace, Facebooks, your blog, and articles, or from an hour of googling, it really isn't so substantial that it couldn't itself have been "planted" and "faked" over time making "Craig Hawley" your "Mark Twain" alias, which goes a long way into explaining your persistence in using it even in face of you twisting words into threats against your family.)
(d) You have not been paying attention. Over the course of our numerous skirmishes on the Collegian, more than just a several CSU students piped up in between with solitary short postings expressing their doubts about 9/11. My ego tells me that I didn't need them to "really side with me or come to my defense," because I had the battles (against three out-of-staters) well in hand through superior writing and argumentation, but mostly by having truth and linked evidence to back up my words. An equally important fact, however, is that sticking around in a forum to take on the gang-banging bullying of you and your echo chamber (all non-students) would have been an enormous time-suck for a student, which can only distract them from assignments, reports, group projects, tests, and work-study jobs.
We could turn this around. Who at CSU really sided with you or came to your defense? Did any of your listed MySpaceFaceBook CSU friends come and toe your line? I've seen no CSU student support or defend you -- not even your own step-daughter or Afghanistan stationed step-son. At best, I've seen someone like "Jimmy" or "Peace and Love" post something that you've agreed with, but with few rejoiners and not the other way around, and certainly not in the middle of the smoke and fog of our flame wars.
And why would they, or anyone, come to your defense or mine? When two people are having online flame wars, that becomes the entertainment for others as they mutter to themselves: "Glad I'm not the one making a damn fool of myself feeding that pesky troll."
The exception to the above revelation is when one contestant is in over his head. Sympathy for the underdog's position can tempt others to jump into the fray. Your defenders were Reg Indy of California's legal profession, and Sgt. Asshat from Chesapeake Bay -- neither CSU students. Moreover, Sgt. Asshat's changegling ways were adopted in part by Reg Indy to jack numbers and levels of support. When confronted, you didn't read any denials from her, did you? And from you we didn't read any reprimands for their multiple-aliasing behavior, which puts the final nail in the real name argument's coffin!
You wrote:
"I was more effective then you."
WTFBS (wishful thinking false bold statement). Conjecture without substantiation.
I took a long term perspective in how I wrote, how I saved, and how I published. If I pay my website bills, my words through google are going to last a lot longer than yours, except for selective, representative, fair-use, direct quotations from you that probably won't be very flattering to you. When your future opponents google you, they will thereby find me and my words. Going forward Without me lifting a finger, I'm going to regularly reap a three-for-one deal in effectiveness. Not only will it taint the googler's impression of you, it will teach effective means of taking you on in new battle fields while feeding the sheep about 9/11.
Very ironic, eh, Mr. Hawley, that your future online skirmishes are going to promote 9/11 truth, even though your writing doesn't buy into such nutty conspiracy theories! And you'll have an unwitting hand in changing people's minds away from your beliefs.
If there be any truth to you adopting an alias, keep in mind that you have very distinct "fingerprints" in your writing that will be very difficult for you to suppress. With the crumbling of this ice damn about aliases, what will it take before your 9/11 blockage begins to flow?
Certainly it isn't because you lack the information, because hasn't my care package been an on-going joke to poke you in the flank? It is because you lack the courage, patriotism, and Christianity to look into the evidence with a critical and open mind to glimpse even a sliver of truth contrary to your indoctrination. Just as ironic, that same closed mind is going to be your Achilli's heel in debate after debate. Of course, you won't see it, but the googlers will.
And to think that when I first encountered you, I was arguing as if planes had really hit the towers. Now, I'm of the no-plane school. See? Evidence can convince me to change my mind.
Sincerely,
Maxwell
"Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." - Pope St. Felix III
You sure take a lot of words to communicate. Your arguments have been supurfluous as they have made no converts. In your entire stay on the threads of the Collegian ( which you boldy said you would never post again on and then came back as something other than Max which you had used before ) WRB is the is one of the only people to publicly support you on anything.
And I am sorry to disappoint you , but there have been CSU students complaining about you from the very beginning. Way before WRB ever posted.
And as far as effectiveness I stand by my statement. In any objective study of the facts I have been more effective. You accomplished none of your goals and I accomplished all of mine.
And the fact you denigrate the RamRepublic betrays you. These are the people that will shape America when you and I are dead , and to be asked to speak to them is a huge honor.
That's the difference in our words at the Collegian.
Mine were embraced by some and yours by none. You admit some CSU students came after you verbally and you even changed your access.
I had no such problems.
So you can use your superfluous , boring , lengthy diatribes all you want. Bottom line I have many new friends at CSU , and you have none. In fact they are asking you to leave them alone.
I have friends on my facebook page that work at the collegian.
Max you are fun to debate , but your worng and I am even more convinced of your lunacy , now that you sat there were not even planes used in 911.
Then where did they fly the jest who's entire manifest was killed. They would have to fly the jets somewhere secretly off all radar and assassinate all on board.
The cell phone calls on the one flight as they went down were from relatives to relatives that recognized the voice of their loved on as they died.
You have gone from goofy to Twilight Zone.
Have fun , I know I do. I am also going to make it to Fort Collins some day , and meet some of the friends I have made.
I would say we should show up at the same time but you have no reason to go there as no one likes you.
Adios Max. I am sure we will meet again and you go right ahead and waste your life stalking me. I will continue to win friends and influence people just like my favorite book taught me.
Dale Carnegie was a genius.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
Make a note to yourself. You tend to embed your misunderstandings so deep into your conscience, you can't seem to let them go even after they have been thoroughly exposed. That's what makes discussions with you so frustrating.
When you blatantly over-generalize or make things up as exhibited in your last email, it doesn't just disprove the point you were making, but also just about every point. You become an unreliable source that has to be fact-checked on every statement.
You wrote (repeatedly over the last several months) the following lie:
"you boldy said you would never post again on and then came back as something other than Max which you had used before."
I've addressed this before. My mistakes were in taking your words ABOUT MY WORDS at face value and not fact-checking when you first brought it up.
The fact is, I never wrote that I would never post again; go read my enhanced archives (that also frequently link to the Collegian database). At the very moment I was ramping down Maxwell for a time, I was ramping up other aliases, like "Craig Hawley of Reseda, CA is a liar," which seems rather ironically fitting for this discussion. As such, I never would have made the assertion you attribute to me, and the records on my site and the Collegian prove you wrong.
You wrote:
"WRB is the is one of the only people to publicly support you on anything."
The above statement disproves the following lie from you:
"(My words) were embraced by some and yours by none."
You wrote more lies:
"You admit some CSU students came after you verbally and you even changed your access. I had no such problems."
I admitted no such thing. Based on the messages themselves and the IP address I fished from the log files of my website, I believe it was one person, not "some" or "several". And the only thing that suggests it wasn't you, Reg Indy, or Sgt. Asshat was the first two octets of a Comcast IP address similar to my own.
The messages came during a period when I wasn't active in the forums, but WRB was, and you and your echo chamber were going full tilt conflating WRB with me. Therefore, the messages weren't really aimed at me, but at WRB.
As for me disabling my email form, it was only a matter of time before I was going to have to fix it anyway. From my other websites, the form was proven insecure. This "fan mail" only exploited the same deficiency of the Collegian posting form in not validating email addresses.
With regards to you not having such problems, you don't have a website. Your web presence is built on the services provided by others, services that validate email addresses for you. It becomes more difficult for a jokester to get a message to you without some accountability and tracability. The change to my Contact Me page was to require them (A) to figure out my true email address (not too difficult) in order to send me a message from a valid email account or (B) to go through a validating service like blogspot to contact me. (Of course as proven by spammers, there are still ways to send email from invalidated email accounts, but it requires advanced knowledge and more importantly servers on the internet whose administrators won't get bent out of shape about such misuse.)
And speaking about changing access, Blogspot, and you having no such problems, why did you (A) delete my comment from your blog and (B) disable commenting on your blog?
You wrote more lies:
"I have many new friends at CSU , and you have none. In fact they are asking you to leave them alone."
I have already outlined my ties to CSU students and alumni from a posting you probably never read or didn't comprehend. And they are real, face-to-face, in-person ties, not cyber ones established through the quirks of facebooks and mySpace. You overstate your case making it a... LIE.
CSU students asking me to leave them alone? Never happened, so that's a... LIE.
Maybe what you meant to write was that a few stray postings might have asked me to leave the forum alone. What you conveniently leave out was that they were addressing me, you, and Reg Indy; they didn't like our dominance & brawling in the forums, didn't like non-students abusing the forums, and didn't like out-of-staters like you skewing the forums.
The ones that were directed explicitly at me that I recall (and that weren't Reg Indy or Sgt. Asshat in disguise), I could count those on one hand. To count those asking you to leave would require both hands and both feet (and that would still be undercounting it.)
Yet more lies from you:
"In any objective study of the facts I have been more effective."
Would that objective study of the facts include, say, total permanent web presence?
Yet another set of twin lies from you:
"You accomplished none of your goals and I accomplished all of mine."
Mr. Hawley, it seems to me that one of your stated goals was to be asked to speak on campus. Was it truly limited to just being asked, or did that goal include actually making a fact-filled and informative speech to an auditorium packed full of eager, attentive students hanging on your every word and turn of phrase?
Did I miss your speaking engagement despite repeated requests for the details regarding its time and place? Or was delivering a real speech not one of your goals? Or, are you lying?
It was very presumptuous of you to say that I've accomplished none of my goals. For that to be true, you'd have to know what my goals were.
"Feed my sheep" about 9/11 was my directive. It was no singular goal but an ongoing quest.
The list above with my permanent web presence and its regular maintenance comes the closest to signifying measurable goals that are directly in line with my directive.
I have no illusions about getting instant converts from "9/11 coincidence theorist" to "9/11 was in inside job," so it can hardly be listed as a goal. My tasks are planting seeds, watering, nurturing, and weeding. Sunlight I have no control over; germination I have no control over. At best, I can be part of the re-enforcement from many sources towards revelation in and awakening of true American Patriots and Christians.
You wrote:
"I am even more convinced of your lunacy , now that you sat there were not even planes used in 911."
Correctly stated, I believe now that no commercial jets hit the twin towers or the Pentagon. You're probably thinking, "but we saw them on television." Guess what? We have also seen Superman fly and many other wonders on television. Google "September Clues" and view the analysis of what the media presented to us on 9/11 and shortly thereafter. Learn how Hollywood wizardry inserted tricks and planted story-lines into our collective conscience. Learn where they screwed up in trying to fool us.
Even the newscasters were duped, because they were fed the same doctored media feeds and repeated them endlessly. Many people reported hearing missiles, but the on-the-street reporters were corrected by those in the studio who had been watching the doctored footage.
You wrote:
"Then where did they fly the jest who's entire manifest was killed. They would have to fly the jets somewhere secretly off all radar and assassinate all on board."
We're getting into speculation here that I'll be happy to entertain, but it is neither here nor there. Before I venture my wild-ass guess, note that the no-planes revelation doesn't change a whole list of questionable "coincidences" on 9/11 that are documented in the materials you already have. The no-planes theory actually ties together many of the unexplained events of that day.
Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of the FAA dictate that when any one of these three happens, they are to send up fighters to intercept: (1) When a plane deviates from its flight plan, (2) When the pilot is unresponsive to radio contact and control tower orders, and (3) When a plane loses its transponder signal. With all four commercial flights, all three deficiencies were present; all should have been intercepted and weren't; none should have reached their targets.
The flight manifests of all those commercial flights were unusually empty for those regular flights. On 9/11, they were only 1/3 full. Not as many people had to be assassinated. A good number of those flying were government employees. Maybe they were going into hiding, and this is a convenient way to stop people from looking for them. (As an aside, none of the families of those on the planes were part of the 9/11 widows and families groups that championed an investigation. All seemed happy with their settlements from the airlines and government; none protest, complain, or raise questions.)
Here's one speculative scenario well within the means of the US military. The commercial planes take off with their unusually light manifests. Early in the flight, those on board are gassed to sleep (or to death). The plane is flown by remote control. The transponder, which broadcasts its flight number, elevation, heading, and other data, is turned off. The plane remains visible on radar. At some point during the flight, a military plane also without transponder intercepts the plane and shadows it so that radar detects the two as one blip. If memory serves me, the flight paths of all of the planes went close to military or civilian airports where the commercial plane could have been landed while the shadowing fighter plane remains aloft and on radar.
At some point during the morning, all civilian aircraft are landed. Controlled chaos. If memory serves me, the Columbus, Ohio airport may have received two of the commercial jets supposedly involved in the attacks. They were taken to a secure area of the airport. Some of the evidence to this comes from eye-witnesses on other aircraft who were kept waiting on the tarmack for 90 minutes or more while these planes were processed. A newspaper article talks about the airport receiving a flight with the same number as supposedly in the attacks.
You wrote:
"The cell phone calls on the one flight as they went down were from relatives to relatives that recognized the voice of their loved on as they died."
First of all, it is well within the means of the US military to perform computer generated voice morphing to mimic anyone they want.
Secondly, the dialog of one of those conversations went: "Hello Mom! It's me, your son, Mark Bingham!" Since when do we address our love ones with first and last name?
Thirdly, cell phone calls would not have worked (and still do not work) from a jet traveling very fast at high altitudes. Cell phone towers direct their signals down, not up. Signal strength gets exponentially weaker the higher up you go. Planes travel so fast that hand-off between cell towers would be problematic. Moreover, the flight traveled over areas without cell towers to hand the signal to, meaning the call would be dropped very quickly.
Fourth, those planes did not have working skyphones (that are satillite based) either.
These were all questionable elements of the 9/11 fairy-tale even before "September Clues".
If the commercial planes were landed while the shadowing military aircraft went on, the cell phone calls would have worked and could have been forced.
Military aircraft could explain the reports of people hearing missiles. It could explain the fast blips appearing on some videos. It could explain the manuevers at the Pentagon (320 degree downward spiral). It could explain the small size of the exterior hole as well as the 10 foot hole that pierced through several rings of the Pentagon. It could explain the need for doctored media footage to hide the true plane and/or a missile.
The point isn't to convince you of anything in my speculation above. The point is to get you to start asking questions and searching for answers about 9/11.
Feed my sheep.
On another subject, you should read the following article.
"Finally, the Story of the Whistleblower Who Tried to Prevent the Iraq War" by Norman Solomon at:
http://www.truthout.org/092508S
Make some connections. How does the media suppression of this story relate or validate other American MSM games that we uncover, tell you about, and you don't believe? Could it be because you have such high regard for FOX and CNN... and television news reporting in general?
Feed my sheep, Dude. Feed the sheep.
Read your whistle blower story and found it pure Liberal drivel and hype. They make claims about Bush without one document to back up their opinion.
They spend the whole article deifying the supposed whistle blower to the point ti is embarrassingly biased. This does not sound a like a fair synapses of what this woman did with supporting documentation to prove assertions made.
This sounds like her private PR firm wrote it. Or some Liberal with a hate for Bush and all conservatives.
So I read something you wanted me to and it was a waste of my time.
Of course it was hype, because that is what the forward of a book is supposed to do, of which this was a reprint.
Sorry I didn't make myself clearer, but the salient point to note was the suppression of an important news story by American mass media that not only would have reflected poorly on the Bush Administration (to the point of not being able to ignore criminal charges), but also would have shot further holes into the run-up to war in Iraq, possibly even to the point of sinking it.
This is but one example where MSM acted deliberately as a propaganda arm of the Bush Administration. Many many more exist. Your take-away should be that American MSM is corporate controlled with motives and agendas that defy any claims (that they themselves planted and hyped) about MSM being primarily left-leaning and liberal. The conclusion is that this corporate-owned media (your primary news source) is anything but balanced and fair.
The Iraq War never should have been waged. The Bush Administration lied to Congress, lied to America, and lied to the world. Corporate media helped bang the drums of war relentlessly.
Ever hear the English expression: "in for a penny, in for a pound." Think currency. If the penalty for stealing a penny is the same as it is for stealing a pound, you might as well steal the pound. You'll be better off if you get away with it.
And more to the point of my quest, anybody with sufficient intelligence to research the policies of the Bush Administration will quickly connect dots and deduce other conclusions.
Have you watched all of the "September Clues" videos yet?
MSM gobbled up the 9/11 video footage fed to them directly (and doctored up) by government sources. News is news, they might be forgiven for repeating the footage over and over, but how the footage first got inserted into the control booth, how the bin Laden story was first planted, and how the fabel of the building destructions was first introduced, these are the guilty pennies that condemn American media as complicit in the 9/11 crimes, whereby banging the war drums for Iraq and suppressing wild-fire international stories is merely them going for the pound in the media de-regulation promised by Bush.
FYR, you've taken repeated dumps on investigative reporter Greg Palast without knowing or familiarizing yourself with his work. He's an American and he investigated the stealing of the 2000 and 2004 elections... for British publications, because the American ones have gutted their investigative news reporting divisions down to info-tainment. Palast's work again were stories that MSM suppressed.
When I learn about such deliberate media suppression, conspiracy theories become conspiracy probabilities. The no-planer becomes a no-brainer.
The 9/11 ball is still in your court. You can easily convince me to sing another tune about 9/11, if you would but find the errors in the 9/11 materials sent to you or linked for you.
For you, it is the infamous red pill blue pill challenge given to Neo by Morpheus in "The Matrix." You keep swallowing the pill the keeps you in your little ignorant caccoon. You don't seem to have the moral fortitude to take the pill that promises an awakening and that would force your most fundamental convictions to have you react differently in the name of patriotism and Christianity.
Feed my sheep.
I can see by your misguided idea that the MSM is in Bush's side ever is ludicrous. You ignore the fact that the MSM may have not reported your story because it was crap.
I have known for years and said so that the MSM is and always has been hopelessly in the tank for Liberals and Democrats. That is why Fox News does so well. It is more conservative , yet nothing liek the rest is Liberal , and now Harvard has given us the proof.
http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://www.twoorthree.net%2F2008%2F01%2Fanother-univers.html
This now proves ( from Barrack Obamas own school gotta love the irony ) the obvious MSM Liberal Bias that I have seen for decades. They also did another survey where they looked at journalists campaign contributions and found , surprise , that journalist overwhelmingly gave mastiffs amounts more to the Liberals and Democrats athe conservatives and Republicans.
The problem is with you Max when ever you are posed with a dilemma you 100% of the time see the conspiracy and never acknowledge other possibilities.
The news story you just cited is a prime example. You could not see that the MSM might just disagree with you and think your story is crap , and not worth reporting.
You immediately see a conspiracy by the MSM to support Bush. This flies in the face of hard cold fatcs that the MSM is hugely biased in a Liberal way.
Do I really have to show yo stats at how rabid the MSM is to hang Bush for anything. Yet you want people to believe that these mor9ons that look for a way to trash Bush on a daily basis and have been exposed as in the tank for Liberl;as , would knowingly pass up a story that you say would have brought criminal charges against the man they hate and try to frame every day.
Makes no sense at all. I know you don't see your own folly , but everyone at CSU did. Could you be right someday , sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
You really are Mel Gibsons character. If given twenty reasonable possibilities possibilitites , you will pass by all of them and always side with the conspiracy theory on the fringe.
You may have forgotten I already asked you about the Kennedy assassination and many other debunked conspiracy theories and you told me you believed every one I asked about.
I feel that you for some distorted reason have a need to feel like Mel Gibson in that movie. It makes you feel superior and intelligent and better than everyone else if you can convince yourself that you know things no one else does.
So as I said with Hravard proving what I have known for decades about the MSM Liberal bias is true I choose to believe that the biased Liberal MSM thought your story was a non starter or they would have jumped on it to hang Bush.
You may as well just give in and realize that Bush is never going to the Hague and will never be prosecuted for anything.
We saw the Democratic Congress go after him and Cheney and his whole administration and they wasted millions on a witch hunt that got them absolutely ZERO.
The only thing they got was a man lying to investigators about something that was then exposed as a case that should have never been brought. They got nothing on the original charges , so they failed miserably.
You are so rigid that I don't even need to hear from you when a new conspiracy theory comes out. I just know you will buy it as you have never turned one down yet.
Live Large
Craig
I have already addressed your Harvard studies. Here is the short version: the studies only document the leanings of the journalists, not the editors and owners of the publications and MSM outlets. When those with ownership or editorial power want a story killed, the story gets killed. End of story and it makes no difference whether the reporter was an in-the-tank liberal or a Kool-aid-drinking neo-con.
You wrote:
"Do I really have to show yo stats at how rabid the MSM is to hang Bush for anything."
Yes, you do! Had the British whistleblower's accusations been published in the United States at the time they were made, it might have persuaded Congress to take another course of action. It could have certainly hung Bush. So this single instance disproves your case, and there are many others.
You wrote:
"The news story you just cited is a prime example. You could not see that the MSM might just disagree with you and think your story is crap , and not worth reporting."
Now that is a conspiracy theory that has no basis in MSM reality. Maybe if you would read (and comprehend) instead of trying to blow smoke out your ass, your words and opinions would only smell like crap instead of proving themselves to be crap.
Here is the last paragraph of the article I linked, which was the reprinted foreward to a book which is about a real live British intelligence agency employee who at great personal risk revealed an illicit spying operation at the United Nations in which the US government was the senior partner:
"When the prosecution of Katharine Gun finally concluded its journey through the British court system, ... a surge of American news reports on the closing case 'had people wondering why they hadn't heard about the NSA spy operation at the beginning.' "
You wrote more crap with:
"We saw the Democratic Congress go after him (Bush) and Cheney and his whole administration and they wasted millions on a witch hunt that got them absolutely ZERO."
Fact: The case was initiated under a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS, not a Democratic one.
Fact: Fitzgerald is a REPUBLICAN U.S. ATTORNEY.
Fact: Fitzgerald was appointed by the REPUBLICAN ATTORNEY GENERAL ASHCROFT.
Fact: It wasn't a witch hunt. It was the criminal outing of a CIA agent that Fitzgerald was authorized to take where ever it may lead.
Fact: They didn't get zero. Libby was V.P. Dick Cheney's chief of staff and was convicted of perjury. It was because of that perjury that it rose no higher or without more serious convictions. In the paraphrased words of Fitzgerald: "Libby's lies and perjury kicked so much sand into the eyes of the umpire, it was too difficult to make the case to go up higher."
Fact: Libby was tried, convicted, and sentenced, but served no time. Instead, President Bush commuted his sentence. Why didn't Bush pardon him? Because a pardon would mean that Libby no longer faced any danger of further prosecution or self-incrimination and as such could be compelled to give testimony against the VP or Pres. Merely commuting the sentence kept Libby's 5th amendment rights against self-incrimination in tact.
Fact: In March 2007, it was revealed that Fitzgerald "was ranked among prosecutors who had 'not distinguished themselves' on a Justice Department chart sent to the White House in March 2005...." This was revealed in light of an investigation of the December 2006 firings of several U.S. Attorneys by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, perceived as being politically motivated and despite his previous Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service in 2002. The Washington Post article states that two other prosecutors so ranked were dismissed. Was Fitzgerald almost retaliated against?
Fact: The original case was the outing of a CIA agent, which in itself was retaliation for her husband's publishing his finding that no connection existed between Iraq and Nigerian yellow cake as expoused by a forged document. (Who forged the document in the first place?)
Fact: The emailed memorandum from the US National Security Agency (NSA) that Katherine Gun of the British intelligence agency leaked was of such import, it shook the government of Tony Blair and caused uproars on several continents. But for the media in the United States, it was a minor story. For The New York Times, it was no story at all. It should have rocked the Bush Administration, too.
You wrote:
"You are so rigid that I don't even need to hear from you when a new conspiracy theory comes out. I just know you will buy it as you have never turned one down yet."
I suggest you look up the difference between rigid and malleable.
When it comes to believing the words uttered by neo-con-men, you are the most gullable, Kool-Aid drinking, uncritically thinking, blinders-wearing fool apt to be found who will rigidly defend the lies ignorantly.
How convenient of you to throw out labels, like "conspiracy theories". You use that label much more so than I. You use it all the time to refute things, mostly because you are too damn lazy to look into the claims for validity. I suggest you look up the words to learn what you are spouting.
A civil conspiracy or collusion is an agreement between two or more parties to deprive a third party of legal rights or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective. ... It's not necessary that the conspirators be involved in all stages of planning or be aware of all details. Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furthance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy. A conspiracy may exist whether legal means are used to accomplish illegal results, or illegal means used to accomplish something legal. In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between natural persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement.
If you were paying attention to the FISA court scandal and the Iraqi War run-up by the Bush Administration, you would find it most difficult to argue that they were anything less than civil and criminal conspiracies as defined above.
These aren't theories. They are fact. They happened.
Here's an interesting quote from the video "Money as Debt."
"Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity."
~ Marshall McLuhan, media "guru"
Feed my sheep.
I have already addressed your Harvard studies. Here is the short version: the studies only document the leanings of the journalists, not the editors and owners of the publications and MSM outlets. When those with ownership or editorial power want a story killed, the story gets killed. End of story and it makes no difference whether the reporter was an in-the-tank liberal or a Kool-aid-drinking neo-con.
All stories were taken into account as the stats came from stories that actually made it to air or print. Stories that were killed had no effect as no one heard or read them.
So who owns a company is irrelevant to what is actually released. What is actually released is the only yardstick and for someone that thinks so highly of your self in intellect to not get that fact is pathetic.
If someone doesn't read or see or hear something it has zero effect on them.
So the only thing we need to analyze is the bias in what is actually broadcast or printed.
In those stats the Liberal bias is plain and overwhelming.
I'll give you an example that even you ( who has to over think and troll every position ) can understand.
We both can agree that Pat Buchanan is a conservative. He is far right of me.
So let's say he owned MSNBC. Under your idiotic idea that would mean that MSNBC was biased towards Liberals.
Moronic on it's face.
People do not watch the company owners as part of the broadcast.
If this network owned by Buchanan trashed Liberals 10% of the time and Conservatives 50% of the time that would be a Liberal Bias.
Since those stories are the only thing being broadcast to the general public , the net effect would be a lopsided Liberal biased broadcast and thus station.
That is what Harvar proved.
Nothing you can say or do about owners of corporations changes those stat.
You use typical Liberal change the subject and deflect the reality.
On this issue you are dead wrong and nothing you can say will change the truth.
When you get stats that say lminglyoverwhe, that broadcast or written media is favoring conservatives in what is actually put out to the public let me know. Until then speaking to your obviously thick and biased head on this particular matter would be an exercise in futility for me.
Good day sir.
To quote your sheep your premise is Baaaaaaahhhhhddddd.
LMFAO
Mr. Hawley (THE MAN),
You have repeatedly proven that your word must be fact-checked. When a source is provided, you might just mangle its findings.
The Harvard study is no exception.
Your mistake (or purposeful twist) is in taking the conclusions from a study of limited scope and extrapolating them where they don't apply. The study focused on the political coverage of the presidential candidates from over a year ago when the Democratic and Republican parties each fielded eight or more contenders. The study was not about media in general or all types of stories. (Whereas news reports were in the study, news commentary, shows that talk about the news, and talk radio were not.)
Does it surprise anyone that such political coverage would have a liberal bias after almost eight years of failed Bush policies and scandals, two (illegal) wars, and a tanking economy? Even the Republicans themselves scramble to differentiate themselves from the leader of their party.
Beyond this, I have little desire to go into the Harvard study and your misplaced hype about a liberal media. With those "liberal media" blinders strapped to your head in furtherance of your "anti-liberal" agenda, you won't be able to see much less understand my position. You missed the point about suppression.
You wrote the following nonsense:
"If someone doesn't read or see or hear something it has zero effect on them."
Ignorance is bliss, right? Just because you don't follow the news on the bursting housing bubble and the stock market crash doesn't mean that your house hasn't lost equity, doesn't mean that your retirement account hasn't dropped in value, doesn't mean that inflation doesn't devalue your savings, and doesn't mean that the combined effects on the economy might cost you your job.
Regarding the suppressed story in question about disclosure by the British intelligence employee of an NSA spying operation directed against the UN delegations to learn of and influence UN deliberations prior to the Iraqi War, you seem to think it wouldn't have made any difference -- zero effect -- on the American news reading public whether or not it had been published in the US at the time it was happening. For someone with supposedly a step-son serving another tour of duty overseas in the military, "zero effect" in this instance takes on new meaning.
The American President perpetrated a crime by ordering the NSA to spy on the UN in this manner, and the suppression was tantamount to a cover-up. You don't think its publication would have soured people's and congress's faith in the voracity of Bush's words and motives, particularly when many other indicators were pointing out the same thing? You don't think this would have been a scandal which might have distracted and delayed the run-up to war, maybe to the point where weapons inspectors could complete their tasks and war wasn't needed? You don't think this criminal act revealed in a timely fashion wouldn't have been an issue for Kerry to not only drive home but drive Bush from office in 2004?
And by your line of reasoning, smoke-and-mirrors, and Bush Administration cheerleading, the suppression of this story was done by a liberal journalists in furtherance of a liberal agenda and not by some conservative media executives with motives and agendas unknown to us.
Doesn't it urk you that major international news stories on US soil at the UN were withheld, which could have given you (and Congress) a clearer picture of the crimes being committed in order to take our nation into an illegal war? Crimes in the plural sense: this NSA UN spying, the retalitory illegal outing of a CIA agent, wiretapping all Americans without FISA Court approval, and the Justice Department firings to name but a few.
You wrote:
"Stories that were killed had no effect (on the stats) as no one heard or read them. So who owns a company is irrelevant to what is actually released."
I agree that killed stories had no effect on the stats for the primaries media coverage up to October 2007, because (a) the killed stories were from 2003 before Obama, McCain, and others even began their campaigns and (b) the killed stories reflected poorly on the Bush Administration, but not necessarily those seeking the presidency.
So other than that, what you write is utter nonsense. Reporting a crime is supposed to be neither Republican nor Democrat, neither conservative nor liberal, neither right nor left; it just is.
Remember the Christian parable about the talents and being faithful in both the big things and small. You got the conclusions of the Harvard study wrong, misinterpretted them, and in bringing up the Harvard study (purposely) missed my points about media suppression entirely; it is no wonder that your smallness there has you failing in perceiving and understanding bigger things.
On to 9/11:
Think that no credible, high-level officials doubt the official version? Go to: http://911proof.com/7.html
Think only a handful of people question the official version of 9/11? Take a look at this national poll.
Think that 9/11 is a partisan issue?
If you're a conservative who believes that 9/11 conspiracies are something cooked up by liberals and the Democrat party to weaken the conservative movement or to undermine the President's ability to lead the country in this dangerous time, read this.
If you're a liberal who doesn't think that anyone credible questions 9/11, read this.
Are you Christian? A special welcome! Here is something you might find interesting.
On to the no-planer situation, have a look at Joe's Law.
Also, validate the fact that most witnesses at the WTC heard and saw no planes.
I've been enjoying my separation from the Collegian. Other things are unfolding. BTW, I noticed your posting under "THE MAN" awhile back.
Feed my sheep, MAN.
That i all I was saying was that in this election the media is hugely biased towards Liberals.
Not I can list other studies and authors who have exposed the general bias of the media.
Also they did a survey of all the journalist from dozens of networks and channels and they identified themselves as either Dems or Repubs.
Then they asked who they gave money to and how much.
Surprise the journalist overwhelmingly said they were Liberal Dems and they gave sometimes as much as 80 to 20 in favor of Libs.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
If the media has a liberal slant in more recent times, is that really so bad? Your over-dramatic and melodramatic predictions of its outcome and influence is unfounded. Whether it sways left or right, I'm more concerned about the filtering and suppression at the editorial level, sometimes at the behest of the government.
You have been quick to label me a "conspiracy theorist" (and to link this mere label with "nutty", "insane", and other variants.) Why don't you hold your tongue until you have weighed the evidence? I sent you several items to assist in that endeavor.
One of those items was Naomi Wolf's book "The End of America." She has a new book out that you can order from Amazon. Here's a recent interview with Naomi Wolf.
Pay attention to the new Warrior's Oath for the military, which pledges service to the commander-in-chief and to the mission instead of the Constitution. Make a morning day of searching out her YouTube videos, my friend.
How are you weathering the economic downturn? How do your retirement funds look? Have these been eight years of economic prosperity for you, particularly this last year? You belittled Dr. Ron Paul, but in this interesting video about the Bailout Backers, he shows a superior understanding of our economy.
You have repeatedly tried to slander liberals by labeling them "socialists." So that it doesn't escape your attention, technically the neo-con's in office and those supporting the bailout package are socialists.
"... privatize gains to the few and socialize the losses to the masses."
Rep. Marcy Kaptur
Here is one indication that American capitalism is alive and well. I understand that this website was fully functional with items available for purchase within 6 hours of McCain's utterance.
The way I figure it, John McCain election victory is dependent on massive election fraud or an October Surprise, because otherwise Obama should win by a landslide. I recently ran across an article that talked of Colorado having the potential of being the next Florida and Ohio with our new state-wide voting databases.
I don't know where the following quote comes from.
"It is more important to be engaged in the question than to know the answer."
Feed my sheep, my friend.
++++++++++++ http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53703.html
The Senate Intelligence Committee is examining allegations by two former U.S. military linguists that the super-secret National Security Agency routinely eavesdropped on the private telephone calls of American military officers, journalists and aid workers.
...
If the allegations are true, they could re-ignite a political firestorm over the administration's post-9/11 eavesdropping operations and its efforts to collect vast quantities of data about Americans' tax, medical and travel records; credit card purchases; e-mails and other information.
...
Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., called the allegations "extremely disturbing." He said in a statement that the panel is examining the matter and has asked the administration for "all relevant information."
...
Rockefeller noted that Congress this year passed legislation tightening NSA monitoring procedures following an outcry over the disclosure that after 9/11, the agency had begun intercepting the overseas communications of Americans without court orders under what the administration called the Terrorist Surveillance Program.
"The committee will take whatever action is necessary to ensure those rules are followed and any violations are addressed," Rockefeller said.
++++++++++++
How many members of the Republican Party does it take to change a light bulb?
Answer: TEN...
1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed,
2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed,
3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb,
4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or for eternal darkness,
5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for the new light bulb,
6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor, standing on a step ladder under the banner "Bulb Accomplished,"
7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally "in the dark" the whole time,
8. One to viciously smear #7,
9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how John McCain has had a strong light bulb-changing policy all along,
10. And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing a light bulb and screwing the country.
And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to change the light bulb.
++++++++++++
An Indian walks into a cafe with a shotgun in one hand pulling a male buffalo with the other. He says to the waiter, 'Want coffee.'
The waiter says, 'Sure, Chief. Coming right up.'
He gets the Indian a tall mug of coffee. The Indian drinks the coffee down in one gulp, turns and blasts the buffalo with the shotgun, causing parts of the animal to splatter everywhere and then just walks out.
The next morning the Indian returns. He has his shotgun in one hand, pulling another male buffalo with the other. He walks up to the counter and says to the waiter, 'Want coffee.'
The waiter says 'Whoa, Tonto! We're still cleaning up your mess from yesterday. What was all that about, anyway?'
The Indian smiles and proudly says, 'Training for position in United States Congress: Come in, drink coffee, shoot the bull, leave mess for others to clean up, disappear for rest of day.'
Colin Powells son voting McCain. Dad must be getting senile. LMAO
Guess the apple does fall far from the tree. Especially when the tree is rotted from Liberalism.
I watched Colin Powell's endorsement again and he had not one good reason to vote for Obama he used a bunch of buzz words and catch phrases , but he could point to no legislation that was ground breaking or one ounce of executive experience.
Like all Obama supporters he was stuck using empty words.
Obama supporters are like lemmings when asked for Obamas qualifications they stand there like a deer in the headlights and then someone holds up a shiny button that says change and they all scream YES WE CAN.
Yes we can destroy America.
Yes we can get a man that is unqualified elected POTUS.
Yes we can sell our freedom down the toilet and implement a socialist or communist America.
Yes we can insure America is taken from the one superpower left on earth and leave it broken and bankrupt from social programs.
YES WE CAN KILL OUR COUNTRY LIKE BLIND , HYPNOTIZED , MINDLESS , DISCIPLES OF OUR OBAMESSIAH
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I've been pretty busy on the home front and dodged some lay-off bullets on the work front again. Meanwhile, I'm within a couple weeks to a month of having the time to perform some back-fill to my website.
I plan on mining at least my half of our Facebook exchanges going back to September or so when I cleared the air and admitted my tag-team participation in your online bout with WRB that led to your calling "Wolf" on a perceived threat that wasn't. My exchange with you is a needed Epilogue to the Chronicles of Hey-Seuss portion of the Hee-Hawley Index.
I haven't decided yet how much source material from you I should post. You've complained in the past about your words not being published in their entirety on my website, so I suspect you won't mind me including your postings.
On the other hand, the exchanges were private ones on Facebook. Therefore, it is only fitting that I present you with the option of complete exclusion except for fair-use quotes embedded in my half of the exchanges -- the true half I need to publish.
Of course, if you'd like the opportunity to spruce up your half of the postings before I publish, I suppose that would be fair. After all, I take the time to re-read my words and fix errors as I go through the reformatting and republishing process. It sort of leaves your side of the debate at a huge perception disadvantage that your words don't undergo any subsequently editing to fix glaring errors and typos.
On another topic that relates, there's a pretty good website out there called http://www.changethis.com that posts PDF manifestos on various topics. This one in particular about "To Criticize is to Publicize" [http://www.changethis.com/53.05.CriticalPublicity] ought to be good reading for you.
Maxwell Bridges
LOL publish away. I don't care what you post from me as I always stand by my words.
Do my beliefs change with time and data , of course.
So what you post may have no bearing on where I am in my life now or in the future.
But I always assumed that what I wrote on the net is open for anyone to re-post or publish.
So enjoy. After all it is flattering that you would like to re-post and editorialize my words.
Looks like things are heating up for Obama and more and more staff picks are withdrawing their names or quitting under the cloud of scandals.
One constant theme in his fiasco of an attempt at picking his administration is NOT PAYING their TAXES.
195 renowned economists and five Nobel Prize winners , all signed an ad telling Obama his Porkulus package was garbage.
Now prominent Democrats in the Senate are threatening to sink his newest Prokulus Omnibus bill.
He has managed to spend in less than two months more than has been spent in the history of the country.
He makes Bush look like an amateur when it comes to spending.
There is going to be a huge backlash to his attempt to socialize America and promote class warfare.
Not to mention his unforgivable choice of Leon Panetta ( a budget specialist with absolutley no experience or qualifications to run the CIA ) to head the CIA.
We are assured of another 911 style attack and of course this one will be bigger in scope.
People are finding out every day what I said about Obamessiah for the entire campaign.
The very sovereignty of America is at stake ad I make no apologies for standing up to the Socialization of my country by the lunatic left.
Nice to hear from you , as you have been a worthy opponent. I have been off line a while as my Step Mother died recently and my Dad is in failing health.
But I am getting back into the swing of things again.
TTYL
++++++++++++++++++++
Oh one last thing. Didn't you question whether I was ever in the military.
Just giving you a heads up that I have a copy of my DD214 from the National Personnel Records Center at 9700 Page Avenue in St. Louis Missouri.
My Request number was 1-4600572401
The request and document are signed by Felecia Draper an archives technician at the Records center.
If you want to call and at least ask them if their Request Numbers are formatted as I said , feel free. The number is 314-801-0800.
So if you are planning on re-posting or publishing anything questioning my service I will forewarn you I will post the DD214 with my name and the other personal info blacked out and make you look like a liar which will put into doubt any thing else you write about me to your readers.
So that part is up to you.
But I do have the documents I spoke of and will nto hesitate to use them if you post lies about my service.
{Unfinished version 1: This was never sent to Hawley.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
I never questioned whether you were in the military. I took that and so many of your words at face value, until proven otherwise, like your claims of being a Vietnam Era Veteran and the Vietnam Veteran impression you hoped to leave.
I get a chuckle out of your statement:
"If you are planning on re-posting or publishing anything questioning my service I will forewarn you I will post the DD214 with my name and the other personal info blacked out and make you look like a liar which will put into doubt any thing else you write about me to your readers."
How does posting a DD214 with your name and other personal information blacked out prove anything? At that point, it could be anyone's DD214 and not specifically yours. It would neither prove you a veteran nor me a liar.
I also have to laugh at the parallelism with our 9/11 discussion. Were I to have posted some wrong information about you (or 9/11), it can be easily corrected. It doesn't change the overall arch of the story and who has been a more reliable agent for truth. The DD214 is a red herring like most of the official 9/11 story. It distracts in an attempt to squash a thread that was never an issue except for your Vietnam Era Veteran lies.
Documentation about your military service is a moot point for several reasons. First of all, the epilogue covers our Facebook exchange where your military service doesn't come up. Second, if any doubt existed about your service, it has been published on my website in the Chronicles of Hey-Suess for half a year or more and you were repeatedly made aware of its existance.
Third, I won't be looking up your military record any more than I will be verifying the existence of your step-daughter in Fort Collins. I'm not saying she or they don't exist. The take-home message from this sidebar comment is that you repeatedly behaved online in a manner that called into question her existence, your character as loving step-dad, or both, with your insistence on poking students into heated debates at her university, posting under your "real name," and not changing how, where, or under what alias you posted despite the (hyped perception of) endangerment you regularly created for her.
If I had lingering doubts about your military service, they would be related to the duration of such service, meaning your postings have an aura of you still being in the government's employ. Plus, you uttered the divergent comments of (a) you having an active top security clearance and (b) you being a medical MJ user and unofficial distributor. I'm probably wrong, but your little story about being reprimanded in the military for MJ usage seems like a damning enough episode to prevent any type of security clearance ever being granted to you; certainly your involvement with medicinal herbs today would raise a red flag in your TS status. Not that I care one way or another, except that it exposes further incongruities.
I'm just being cantankerous.
You wrote:
"[P]ublish away."
Thank you for permission to re-publish all or portions of our facebook exchange.
You wrote:
"I don't care what you post from me as I always stand by my words. Do my beliefs change with time and data , of course. So what you post may have no bearing on where I am in my life now or in the future. After all it is flattering that you would like to re-post and editorialize my words."
I can't help but point out the incongruities between "I always stand by my words" and "my beliefs [do] change with time and data." Moreover, once your mind is made up, no data can convince you of anything, because you have little patience or intelligence to dig in and potentially prove your former position wrong.
{Unfinished version 2: This was never sent to Hawley.}
Dear Mr. Hawley,
And how was Obama to know prior to making his selection and starting the vetting and confirmation process that his staff picks would result in them withdrawing their names or "quitting under the cloud of scandals?"
Isn't it refreshing, though, to see them leave before really taking office, instead of having the scandal suppressed and ignored only to have it ignite some bigger scandal later in office, as was the case with Bush's staff?
Given that the cornerstone of your Republican view appears to be "cut taxes" and "pay less taxes", who are you to judge them for NOT PAYING THEIR TAXES?
Glad to see that you acknowledge now Bush as a big spender. Alas, you don't seem to fatham the purpose of a stimulus package, which is to make the government "the spender of last resort."
Socialize America? Promote class warfare?
How quickly you dismiss what Obama inherited from your golden boy. How quickly you attempt to mischaracterize things.
Leon Panetta, a budget specialist as head of the CIA. "His selection points up the difficulty Mr. Obama had in finding a C.I.A. director with no connection to controversial counterterrorism programs of the Bush era." (NYTimes) How quickly you forget that the Pentagon (including the CIA) had huge leaks in its money accountability. And who did Bush appoint? Porter Goss.
"We are assured of another 911 style attack and of course this one will be bigger in scope."
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 4: 9/11 Christian Science Treatment
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 5: Mind Your P's & Q's
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 6: Q Dots
Choice Quotations from the Hee-Haw-ley Himself showing his God-given character & charm:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59
* 60
* 61
* 62
* 63
* 64
* 65
* 66
* 67
* 68
* 69
* 70
* 71
* 72
* 73
* 74
* 75
* 76
* 77
* 78
* 79
* 80
* 81
* 82
* 83
* 84
* 85
* 86
* 87
* 88
* 89
* 90
* 91
* 92
* 93
* 94
* 95
* 96
* 97
* 98
* 99
* 100
* 101
* 102
* 103
* 104
* 105
* 106
* 107
* 108
* 109
* 110
* 111
* 112
* 113
* 114
* 115
* 116
* 117
* 118
* 119
* 120
* 121
* 122
* 123
* 124
* 125
* 126
* 127
* 128
* 129
* 130
* 131
* 132
* 133
* 134
* 135
* 136
* 137
* 138
* 139
* 140
* 141
* 142
* 143
* 144
* 145
* 146
* 147
* 148
* 149
* 150
* 151
* 152
* 153
* 154
* 155
* 156
* 157
* 158
* 159
* 160
* 161
* 162
* 163
* 164
* 165
* 166
* 167
* 168
* 169
* 170
* 171
* 172
* 173
* 174
* 175
* 176
* 177
* 178
* 179
* 180
* 181
* 182
* 183
* 184
* 185
* 186
* 187
* 188
* 189
* 190
* 191
* 192
* 193
* 194
* 195
* 196
* 197
* 198
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Echo Chamber, Registered Independent:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Superior Officer, Sgt. Asshat:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
Quotations from Jesus H. Christ:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
Quotations from others:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21