Steve Clarke has JUDGED you all!

[wags]

Mikado,

All I can say is that if it was an illusion it was not of my devising. It just struck me that his admission echoed that post and was interested if it had struck a chord with you. As one of the 'subjects' it is unsafe to judge these things.

[kevin]

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily-tpod/
Kevin

[LuisP]

"snip"
I see science as only one descriptor ...

Concur.
And that looks like ground where one might sit, see stuff going on, and exchange ideas and opinions.

Rocky as it may be.

[wags]

"snip"
I see science as only one descriptor ...

Concur.
And that looks like ground where one might sit, see stuff going on, and exchange ideas and opinions.

Rocky as it may be.

Concur,, and being mindful for one another regardless of the terrain.

[LuisP]

As to "hubristic" friends ... I simply can't resist sharing a bit of some oh so classical (and Palmatoria hard learned) lessons

FWIW,
Euripides :"Talk sense to a fool and he calls you foolish"
Tacitus :"To show resentment at a reproach is to acknowledge that one may have deserved it"
Livy :"A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself"
Cicero :"The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct"

And lastly, but not in the least

Plutarch :"I don't need a friend who changes when I change and who nods when I nod; my shadow does that much better"


Conflicting, isn't it ?
Well then, that's the point .....
There are many sides to things.

(suddenly, my hands went rather hot, damn !)

[wags]

Mikado posted on Andrew Boland thread:-

Uh oh....we have a back peddle:

http://www.cosmic-token.com/forum/viewt ... 703#p30703

fruitbat wrote:I will want to make damn sure I have my facts straight, as it was a couple of years back, and like I said I didn't pay huge attention, because I thought it was of questionable veracity. And even if it were true, I decided that wasn't the path I wanted to take to acquire the information so I didn't pursue it despite being offered a look.

Fair enough, but why did you ascribe a greater veracity to one side when by the very existence of contradictory stories can only lead to one conclusion: One of them must be lying, It is not possible if you have not checked to make anything other than a "I do not know", which is where everyone starts and I see at least progress in accepting that maybe there is something that needed to be checked that was not. I did not initially check out as I did not fully realise it's continued relevance, the same error as you FB except the reason I dot check was firstly, It was futile and Mikado was long gone and secondly remarkably I trusted your judgement given your greater knowledge of this sub culture and knew the people better. I had deduced a long time ago you did not check either!

I find it interesting from a personal perspective and consequential judgement call turns out to be correct. I wish you all the best in your investigation.

Please allow me a couple of days to find out exactly what was sold, and if possible, to whom.

~S~

And now he needs to check his facts.....should have done that before his previous post......geez...he is as bad as Linda Leach....they both prove my point. That sucking sound is a foot being extracted.

On a side note....he decided that he didn't want to acquire information as above but when help was offered by yours truly and all he had to do was to keep it for his use and secret...he made a codicil that if he decided it should be given away, he would. Do I see a dichotomy? I am sure there will be an explanation for afterall, he has a good example of the watusi.

Chooch

Mikado

[wags]

From the Token Re: Andrews Story

Postby fruitbat » Tue Dec 02, 2014 11:10 pm

I am the original unbiased, uninvested observer, if you stop to think about it!

I would respectfully disagree with that it is quite self evident that there is a bias, just like everyone else, you have not exercised an open mind and put these to one side... If you really stop and think that through.

I am just some geezer in England sitting behind a computer making up my mind on the basis of what I see.
I've taken three years to decide the rights and wrongs of the situation, and of course, there are plenty of both floating about.

I can see that dishonesty has played an enormous part in getting us to where we are now, and as a counter point to that I have done my best to be strictly honest in my dealings with both sides in the dispute so yes, if you are a reasonable bloke you should indeed have no axe to grind with me.
I would like to courteously disagree however that there "have been no victims here".
I've corresponded with Paul Schatzkin, and frankly whilst he seems to be trying to hide it, he clearly has been traumatised by his experience of writing that book.

Therein the trauma lies the truth and of course he would want to hide that it is called self protection and feeing as far as he could from the causation of said trauma. If you concede there has been then his actions become perfectly rational and sane. His perspective is that Linda has caused this and is and continues to deny her conduct weather justifiable or not is the causation. Bullying Paul further is quite frankly mentally cruel, if as you concede he has been traumatised. In no way could nor should he be expected to write or consider that project any further, it would only happen again.

Now I read what a maelstrom of bullshit he had to wade through at one point, his attitude makes a bit more sense. Thank you for providing the information needed to understand that particular mystery, and thank you very much Linda, for bringing it to my attention.

The mystery that remains for me, is why are so many people dedicating their valuable time and energy to actively bad mouthing and opposing Linda Brown? Surely if she was the fantasist that so many of you contend, the normal human approach of simply turning away and interacting with someone else would be sufficient sanction to deal with the percieved social offence? Surely if one was simply engaged in doing that (as is occasionally claimed) then a more rational approach would have been to let her have the hut (possibly for a fair consideration) and walk away and do something more constructive than the three years of ineffective flailing away that we have witnessed so far?

They have tried to and she refuses to agree, I left at that point as that solution was not acceptable to Linda Brown.

At the end of the day, all I have witnessed is unchivalrous, unseemly, and provocative behaviour directed towards someone who could be described by a young person as a "little old lady" and frankly, I find it a bit repugnant and yes, cowardly. But that's just my interpretation, I don't expect it to have value to many people, but having to read it is the price you pay for asking me to think in an unbiased manner, although of course we are all biased by our previous life experiences and knowledge.

Has Linda Brown considered anybody but herself in all this? The reaction to her is perfectly reasonable if you appreciate her total absence of consideration or respect for others that 'do not believe' in her. You judgement is not required as a definitive answer as you are an admin on the token and moderate the Resolute; ergo You have an investment in Linda Brown's integrity and are not neutral. If you sit down and think about it of course!

Wags

[Mikado14]

Interesting...fruitbat, for some reason, has communicated, notice the plural use of the word, with Paul. For some reason and having known Paul for awhile, I have found him to be not communicative with others in regard to discussing Linda Brown or the book with others unannounced.

In fact, one of the individuals that came here had attempted to contact Paul and the response was to leave him alone and it was not in necessarily the King's English. My last phone call with Paul was in February or March of 2009. Essentially, the purpose of the call was to have a blueprint returned to me and a sample of the dielectric we were using at the time. I believe I let him keep the dielectric but I am not too sure. We talked in general and he was gracious enough to do so. I will not obfuscate that he wasn't troubled but to use the word "traumatized" might be a stretch. I would say "disgusted" would be a good word if I had to choose one word. I will not go into any more detail other than that but I did not leave the conversation "hating" Paul. I liked Paul then and I still do and he is welcome at my door anytime. However, I sensed there was more to the story. It would take the finding of Dave Smith and discovering that he was NOT Morgan to begin to realize the depth of the deception that had taken place with Paul.

Does deception traumatize a person? In a manner of speaking it does to an extent. When someone is lied to it does inflict a trauma on an emotional level but I find the use of the word is excessive. When a child is learning and a friend does something to betray the other is that a trauma? Or better yet a learning lesson, a lesson in life? I would present that Paul learned a lesson, an expensive one but a lesson none-the-less and I would my money to a navy bean that he will not revisit Linda Leach nee Brown in a very long time unless via an attorney.

For fruitbat to imply that he has been in a dialogue with Paul Schatzkin and present that is nothing more than to portray a picture to others of being an "important" person. No one is important but knowing how Linda operates, he is being told just that...that is an ingredient in the Kool Aid.

One more thing:

I am the original unbiased, uninvested observer, if you stop to think about it!

My grandfather used to have a saying...."In a pigs ass".

Mikado

[TheTraveler]

hum... Must be in a posting mood lately.

Mikado, he may be actually "unbiased", but then maybe the bias circuit is not working properly, in which case you slam full tilt on a particular direction. In those cases, the poor circuit does not even know what is happening and it just goes along it's merry way thinking everything is working as it should!

[Mikado14]

yes....yes....I haven't thought of that! He very well may be biased at either end of the load line. Question is, would he be in cut off or saturation? And what Class of operation....I am betting on Class C for that is the smallest.

Mikado