-Caveat Lector-
thank you, webfairy. i accept your apology.
-brian
On Aug 13, 2004, at 12:16 AM, The Webfairy wrote:
re: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/planehuggers/message/71
I said something factually incorrect: "This is the first I've heard of any allegedly principled stand. I am glad that you take at least selective notice of his hate campaign."
It is certainly proof that I am just as capable as anybody else of blanking out in information that does not fit my current theoretical structure.
I was wrong, and I apologize.
Nico said:
In defense of Salter:
He was never actively involved in the smear campaign against the "pod people" at the 9/11 Truth Alliance.
This was more or less an intense solo trip by Robinowitz, later supported by Bill Douglas, Nic Levis, Vic Ashley and some other members.
I also think, that Salter is not connected with the personal hack on letsroll911 or in any form behind the "FEMA-roomate-smear" or anti-websites like of Dan Mcghee aka http://www.yy2.com/letsroll911v2/YaBB.pl
However, there are indications, that Robinowitz might know more about the FEMA-Roomate-smear, since the first postings were mirrored immediately by empirewatch.org (picked up from libertyforum), some NY Friends of Ruppert and Peak Oil supporters.
Strangely, empirewatch.org was registered by XoMoX nyc, which was bought in June 2001 by Crane Aerospace & Electronics, also connected with STC MICROWAVE SYSTEMS ( Electronic Warfare)
nico ________________
Here is the message I claimed didn't exist.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Nico Haupt on 911truth cointelpro Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 14:17:38 +0700 From: Brian Salter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
webfairy,
i can imagine that one of the things you like about those statements from nico concerning john gray and other ongoing issues is that they could be interpreted as an accusation that anyone and everyone who is critical of no-plane/pod/911 video theories is part of a cointelpro campaign.
but if this is what you're thinking, nothing could be further from the truth, because in fact i have recently been taking the lead on the 911truthalliance list to dig up the dirt on john gray, even continuing to press the issue there after nico had temporarily dropped it. i have also been consistently criticizing the nasty and divisive tactics used by mark robinowitz (oilempire.us) that nico complains about. nico and i have been in touch on this and are in agreement about this particular problem even though we respectfully disagree on the overall value of the WTC video analysis school. if you like i could forward a couple of my posts to the truthalliance where i condemn unconstructive, ridicule-based attacks on these issues.
in fact, i should note that nico specifically stated on the truthalliance list that he considered eric's 911 video critiques to be fair and legitimate in their approach, in contrast to robinowitz et al. take note of this, as well as the fact that i have been linking to some of nico and woodybox's research (e.g. "the lost war drill" and "cleveland airport" series) on QQ.net.
the following is a recent post of mine to the 911truthalliance list, after the hopsicker piece came out, with some of my research into gray / khashoggi. it's out of context vis a vis some earlier debate so some of the side issues might not be clear, but the critical info should be clear enough. nico has privately expressed to me his appreciation for my support for him on the john gray issue.
this post of mine was enough to change the minds of several key people who had previously been very defensive and had accused nico and other john gray critics of a smear campaign. i would also point out that i am more cautious and a bit softer on the toronto inquiry organizers and 911truth people because i do not personally have access to some of the inside observers that nico does. but i take all of his concerns very seriously.
-brian
----------------------------------------------------------------------- - ----------------------------
From: Brian Salter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [911truthalliance] Barrie Zwicker in detail on John Gray Date: July 21, 2004 1:37:03 PM GMT+07:00 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Truthalliance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
the new flap over hopsicker's john gray piece makes me feel compelled to send an email to the list that i had written up about a week ago but kept in my out box because there was too much other stuff going on. but i have done some additional research that i think needs to be seen and considered. i believe that the explanations about grey's background that have been offered by nic, ruppert, and zwicker are not convincing and do not address all of the apparent facts. there are some claims make by hopsicker for which i am not aware of any direct evidence for, and these are hopsicker's claims alone. among these are: a) that gray is currently 'working for' adnan khashoggi or serving as a money conduit. b) that gray is controlling any aspect of 911truth, the toronoto inquiry, etc. c) that anyone working with gray is operating on bad intentions. i am also not aware of any genesis-related case where gray is named as a defendant (but also, i did not read all of the court complaints, of which there are quite a few).
HOWEVER, i feel that it can be proven that gray DOES have a background involving khashoggi that goes far beyond the threadbare "explanations" that have been offered in his defence so far. i submit my case that this matter deserves, at a minimum, much closer scrutiny and real documentation, not verbal assurances. what follows is what i wrote previously, with some annotations in regards to hopsicker's new allegations. for the record, i'm not in contact with either hopsicker or chossudovsky about these matters so this represents only my own research and my own opinions, and this does not represent an endorsement of the claims by hopsicker that i specified above.
(approx 14 July 04) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------------------------------------------------------------
a week in bed with the flu has left me behind with my emails, but this is one i need to address and have been thinking about quite a bit. there seems to be a consensus now that the dispute over john gray is past, but i do not share in this consensus. in fact, i continue to be mystified by the threadbare and inconsistent nature of the explanations offered by his supporters and have even more questions now. i might have let this one rest except for the fact that i and others have been scurrilously accused by bill, lori, nic, zwicker, et. al. of being "disruption" agents. so, let me explain.
the story we have on the table about gray's past run-in with the GenesisIntermedia (GENI) fiasco and khashoggi goes something like this: gray hooked up with genesis early on and made a deal with them to develop and market a video & audio product line based on his books. then, years later, international con man khashoggi moved in on genesis and more or less hijacked the company late in the game, running various scams manipulating the company's stock and victimizing many including gray, who lost a lot of money though all this, including his sale of his genesis stock to khashoggi (whom he apparently never even met).
now this really seems to put everything in the clear, but actually it's not the whole story. as a kind of litmus test for how this matter is being handled by gray's defenders, i have been waiting for someone to mention a certain name: ramy el-batrawi. and explain his role. but no one has. and i find this the most perturbing part yet, because it is el-batrawi who was the lynchpin and connector between genesis and khashoggi.
who is el-batrawi? he is a long-time business partner and friend of khashoggi. the two first worked together in 1988, and had already done several business deals together when el-batrawi formed genesis in 1993. he was with the company from its inception and served as its chairman and CEO from 1993 until 2001 when he stepped down as a result of the stock scandal.
GenesisIntermedia Chief Executive Ramy El-Batrawi told Bloomberg News that he has worked with Kashoggi on deals dating back to 1988 and speaks with him "almost every day."http://www.larta.org/pl/NewsArticles/9January01LATimes.htm
21. At relevant times, defendant Ramy El-Batrawi (“El- Batrawi”) was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for the Company. El-Batrawi has known defendant Khashoggi for fifteen years and worked with him on deals for years before the events alleged in this complaint. During the Class Period, he and Khashoggi spoke almost every day.http://securities.stanford.edu/1021/GENI01/20011025_o01c_0109125.pdf
4. Defendant Ramy El-Batrawi ... served as Chairman of the Board and as the Company's Chief Executive Officer from its inception in October 1993 until his resignation in October 2001.http://corporate-law.widener.edu/documents/complaints/19222-001.pdf
[note: hopsicker alleges that attorney michael roy fugler was involved with the incorporation of the company.]
in addition, genesisintermedia was apparently just one of several el-batrawi / khashoggi joint projects which were launched in the early to mid-90s. from research previously posted by nico:
Genesis is a code used by Khashoggi associated with a number of businesses he and Rami El-Batrawi created in the Tampa, FL area (I think of Tampa as home of Sami Al-Arian) in the mid-1990s, including Genesis Aviation.
thus it is amply documented that genesisintermedia was closely within khashoggi's orbit from the very start.
with this fact in mind, consider the version of events communicated by gray to mike ruppert in their face to face conversation in toronto, quoted here from ruppert's email:
"He said that he had never met Khashoggi and that he had lost a great deal of money as a result of Khashoggi's manipulations of the company which had been handling his products. He said that Khashoggi was a late-comer in that K's arrival in the company happened AFTER Gray had started doing business with the company.
the fact of khashoggi being a "late-comer" is almost meaningless -- in fact, it is outright misleading -- without mention of el-batrawi's role in the stock scam -- but he has apparently left it conveniently unmentioned based on what we've seen so far. nor does he mention that he had been doing business for years with el-batrawi, who had FOUNDED genesis, and that this business had occured during a period where el-batrawi and khashoggi were working actively together on other projects. in fact, at some point, gray had become a part owner of genesis[!]. (i have not been able to find out when this occured but tentatively i think it's reasonable to assume it was early on, when gray and batrawi first made the licensing / marketing deal). this leads obviously to the question, what kind of relationship did gray have with el-batrawi when he was working with genesis?
first, observe that el-batrawi was the dominant figure in genesis' day-to-day business activities:
50. Prior to June 1999, GENI was a privately held California-based marketing and promotions company controlled by Defendant Ramy El-Batrawi, which was trying to break into the market for interactive multimedia technologies and the internet. As the Prospectus for its Initial Public Offering dated June 14, 1999, disclosed, however, GENI had achieved little success from its efforts and most of its revenue was derived from related-party transactions. In essence, it was little more than its founder, Mr. El-Batrawi, and some ideas.http://www.mjktrustee.com/pdf/Amended_Complaint.pdf
the media division of genesis, set up by el-batrawi, created and published gray's new video series, which was hit the market in 1994 (which is when genesis really began its business activities).
el-batrawi was an also an executive producer of gray's 1997 CD, "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - Songs for Loving Couples" http://www.artistdirect.com/store/artist/album/0,,250796,00.html
gray's products were a critical revenue source for GENI:
33. Incorporated on October 28, 1993, GenesisIntermedia.com, Inc. did not commence substantial operations until 1994. From inception through June 1997, the Company devoted substantially all its resources to selling products the Company owned or had purchased rights to sell through conventional marketing methods. The Company sold these products to the general public through the use of infomercials, radio advertisements, print media and retail outlets. A substantial portion of the Company's product revenue has come from its Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus product series authored by John Gray, Ph.D.http://www.wyca.com/complnts/geni-com.htm
thus, it is amply documented that gray and el-batrawi had a close working relationship, that this was central to genesis business-wise, and they must have known each other well during this period.
it is also interesting to note that the relationship between gray and el-batrawi went beyond "just business" -- in the acknowledgements of his 1997 book "Mars and Venus on a Date", gray credits el-batrawi in a section which begins: "I thank the following family members and friends for their suggestions and valuable feedback to the ideas in this book..." http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Estates/5206/venusonadate.html
note that this book was not a genesis product -- it was published by harper-collins. therefore, it is documented that there was a positive personal relationship between gray and khashoggi's partner el-batrawi, over and above their business relationship at genesis.
this brings us to the next stage in the story -- the genesis IPO and the entry of khashoggi soon after. khashoggi did not come into the picture as a con-man out of the blue who ruined a perfectly good, successful company. in fact, genesis was already on the rocks after a trumped-up IPO in july 1999, desperate for cash and with its stock price down to $1.33 from an initial offering of $8.50. khashoggi saved the company with an infusion of cash loaned to his friend el-batrawi, and his assistance in bringing in resources for the scam which would inflate genesis stock to over $25.
a good summary of this stage is christopher byron's july 2001 article from the new york observer: http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4640
note especially how byron shows how gray's friend and confidante el-batrawi was already playing games with the funds raised from the july 1999 IPO, BEFORE khashoggi came in and began his active involvement at the end of 1999.
the entire affair and its aftermath are summed up in this businessweek article: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_19/b3832095_mz020.htm
now, to return to gray's assertion of being a victim of khashoggi:"He said that he had never met Khashoggi and that he had lost a great deal of money as a result of Khashoggi's manipulations of the company which had been handling his products. He said that Khashoggi was a late-comer in that K's arrival in the company happened AFTER Gray had started doing business with the company."
there are two problematic issues here. first, gray is saying that he lost money through lost sales of his products, allegedly as a result of khashoggi's manipulations. however, numerous sources confirm that genesis had not met with success in diversifying its revenue sources at the time of its IPO, and did not add any new revenue sources of any significance in the subsequent period. but overall revenues remained relatively steady during the 2000-01 period, which can be verified here: http://www.forbes.com/finance/mktguideapps/compinfo/ CompanyTearsheet.jhtml?tkr=GENI
thus, since gray's products were a main revenue source for genesis, but its overall revenues did not decline, i would hope we could see some real documentation of what gray said he lost. i think this is reasonable to ask. for example, his royalties should show a clearly anomalous decline in sales of his CDs and videos marketed by genesis during the relevant period. (note also that by 1998 at the latest, gray was working with other publishers for his new videos, and there were no new genesis products that i could find).
the second issue is that gray was also a PART OWNER of genesis, thus the rise in the stock price engineered by el-batrawi and khashoggi beginning in late 1999 was in his interest insofar as his stock ownership was concerned. we need to know how many GENI shares he owned, when he aquired them, and when he sold them and for what price. the victims of el-batrawi and khashoggi's scam were those who were left holding GENI stock after 9/11, when its value finally collapsed (which also ties in to the important fact that the GENI scam has been implicated in connection with pre-9/11 INSIDER TRADING). this included individual stockholders as well as the brokerages which had borrowed GENI stock in exchange for cash collateral, which was the central mechanism of the scam. GENI part owner john gray, on the other hand, was one of the lucky ones who cashed out early, as noted in nico's post:
John Gray was paid by Adnan Khashoggi a significant amount for all of his stock in GenesisIntermedia the month before the attack on America. He has remained close to Michael Roy Fugler (another B Team player) who filed a lawsuit against Daniel (Hopsicker) to attempt to have his book on Barry Seal "Barry & the boys" snuffed...."
so, i can see why gray would mention alleged problems with his product revenues but not mention his ownership and sale of GENI stock. if the info above is not correct, then let's see a documented refutation asap.
on top of this, one of the legal complaints contains a very alarming disclosure.
the suit filed by ruined broker MJK indicates that SOME STOCK PURCHASES IN THE EL-BATRAWI / KHASHOGGI SCAM WERE MADE THROUGH AN ACCOUNT IN JOHN GRAY'S NAME!
94. For example, in August 2001, Mr. El-Batrawi himself bought more than $23 million in GENI stock,[9] and Mr. D Angelo that same month bought $30 million in GENI stock, at the same time he was selling about $27 million in GENI stock. In fact, from June through September 2001, Mr. D Angelo cumulatively bought more than $67.2 million and sold $68.7 million in GENI stock.10 On more than one occasion during that time, Mr. D Angelo proudly maintained that he alone was the market for GENI... [footnote] 9 This number includes purchases made through accounts in Mr. El-Batrawi s name, in the name of GenesisIntermedia.com, in the name of Genesis Diversified, and in the name of John Gray, a part owner of GENI.http://www.mjktrustee.com/pdf/Amended_Complaint.pdf
now this requires some explaining. and gray certainly hasn't explained it, because all he has mentioned is losing money through mismanaged product sales, but this has nothing to do with product sales. futhermore, since el-batrawi was totally involved in the illegal activities which supposedly victimized gray, the latter should have had plenty of opportunities as both a licensor of genesis' main product line and stockholder to seek legal remedy for this betrayal. but i've not been able to find any indication that he has done so. if this is the case, then why?
and indeed, if gray was truly relieved and eager to talk about how khashoggi came out of the blue and ruined his business relationship with genesis, why isn't he also chomping at the bit to mention how the person who really would bear the guilt for conning him was not so much khashoggi as his longtime friend and business partner ramy el-batrawi, who had been with genesis from the start and had run the show all along? if gray was eager for this to be known and understood, then why has he put forth the technically true but misleading story that khashoggi was a "latecomer" whom he had never met, when in fact it was his longtime partner el-batrawi who was running most of the nuts and bolts of the stock scam AND USING GRAY'S ACCOUNT TO MAKE SOME THE TRANSACTIONS?
and so, why haven't any of gray's defenders given an explanation which accounts for his relationship with khashoggi's henchman, el-batrawi? anyone who wants to work with gray should have had this answered already.
one thing is for sure, we're not going to hear much from gray's supposedly "ex" friend and business partner el-batrawi himself. as noted in the businessweek article, he's just as elusive as khashoggi: "El-Batrawi could not be located and has not responded to the suits. One of his attorneys declined to comment."
what it looks like to me is that no one has really done "due dilligence" on gray before deciding to work with him. i certainly see no evidence of this being done. all we have been offered are word-of-mouth assurances which have not been verified. now, mark my words -- i can certainly imagine possibile explanations where gray still comes out being the innocent victim, and i'm still completely open and ready to hear a credible and COMPLETE explanation. and i don't see any evidence that anyone who is working with gray is operating with ulterior motives, so i'm not implying such an accusation. i just see extreme lack of effort to check him out -- and a very weird defensiveness at the same time.
at this point, blind faith and verbal assurances are not going to be adequate. this needs to be looked at seriously, and documented, third-party-verifiable proof of gray's version of the story ought to be presented. those who insist that an issue like this must be settled on "trust" are actually the ones violating the trust we need in this movement. sometimes, trust requires verification. of course this will take some effort so i wouldn't expect such a thing to happen immediately while we all have so many things on our plates and are busy with various urgent projects. but at some point, it needs to, and i will continue paying close attention to what is being said, and if further explanations about gray's background manage to address all the facts, or continue to be full of holes.
-brian
ps: following below are some responses to zwicker's comments:
On Jul 3, 2004, at 6:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Have just seen some of this back 'n' forth about John Gray. Without -- I emphasize -- having read Nico's email in detail, let me make the following observations:
without having read in detail? so zwicker admits he's not taking this seriously.
1 -- Each of us has followd a different path to where we are, and will have a different journey as we continue our becoming.
so, does this postmodern, new age pablum means we aren't allowed to challenge each other on judgements which could affect this entire movement?
2 -- Although I suspect there's something of a "guru industry," I cannot sit in judgment as to the validity of the insights of Ram Das or John Gray or others who chose a path of serious "truth seeking," through study or discipleship.
this is not about "truth seeking"... i don't care if someone wants to follow a guru, but this is about someone having spent a decade of his life as personal secretary to the rockefeller of gurus, who runs a notoriously exploitative and money-grubbing organization. an organization that has been implicated in massive systemic child neglect & abuse, and whose leaked secret documents have shown it to be a classic "secret society" type structure whose inner elite core completely misrepresent their real ideology to lay members and outsiders (see for example http://www.trancenet.org/secrets/soma/index.shtml for some sworn court transcripts on the subject). the maharishi is one of the world's richest men, controlling an empire of 3-5 billion dollars, a great deal of which he has made through real estate speculation, and once formed a close allegiance with former philippines dictator ferdinand marcos. i don't know what gray's current attitude is towards maharishi and his org, but he is clearly not concerned with being associated with them since he co-headlined a 2002 new age conference with marharishi's US political front man john hagelin. this stuff matters, especially since so far we are being asked to believe gray's side of the story based on just second hand verbal assurances.
3 -- John Gray's work, quite a few books, is available for any of us to peruse. In my view he has helpful insights to offer. As far as I know, he is contributing a lot more healing and benign education helping people get along with each other than the vast majority of us ever accomplish.
this is just opinion. personally, i side with numerous critics who have pointed out how gray's work reinforces regressive and limiting gender stereotypes.
4 -- John has a personal life history which I think helps explain why he would become a 9/11 skeptic. He has reason to be deeply suspicious of the power elite. His father, a Texas oil millionaire, tried to warn the authorities in Dallas, prior to Nov. 22, 1963, that JFK's life was in danger. He had heard the rumours circulating. Later, John's father divested himself of all his oil industry assets and told his children he wanted them to promise never to have anything to do with the oil industry, which he called the dirtiest and most corrupt and murderous industry on the face of the Earth.
if gray is trying to carry on his father's effort to stop the kind of political elements that did in JFK, he's going about it in some very strange ways. for example, he has given his personal endorsement to gary smalley, a leading spokesman and central figure in the "promise keepers" movement, a notorious front organization for social engineering and mass brainwashing with numerous ties to the extremist christian right, and whose main financial angel is -- guess who! -- nelson bunker hunt. strange endorsement for someone who is supposed to be continuing the fight against JFK's killers and their ilk.
incidentally, it's commonly noted by those who follow PK that gray's philosophy about gender & relationships is largely compatible with what is taught in by PK, with the exception of their religious orientation.
5 -- I asked John personally about what connection, if any, he has or had with Adnan Khashoggi. Khashoggi, I have been aware since the early 1980's is one of the most disgusting international con men, and there is plenty of competition in that category. K is clearly a "merchant of death." John satisfied me that he is aware of the anti-life nature of Khashoggi's activities, that he has not associated with him and would never want to, that he was caught up in the aftermath of dirty dealings by Khashoggi and other dot com crooks and in fact was one of their victims. I studied a court document and an article from Business Week and some other materials that were sent to me and could not see how John was in league with Khashoggi or the others.
i'll let this statement stand on it's own merits in light of the info i provided above. but i'd like to know what the "other materials" were since he admitted not reading nico's carefully.
6 -- It's hard to see how John has anything to gain, in any way, from helping the 9/11 skeptics' movement. It seems fairly clear he risks losing considerably. He has a career, a reputation, and the associated income, which could be at risk. To see the flak that Michael Moore is taking, is to see what can happen to anyone willing to stand up and ask difficult questions. But for Moore the publicity helps sell books and get people into cinemas. That would not necessarily apply to a non-political celebrity.
making a comparison to michael moore is already starting off on the wrong foot in my particular view, given that i'm not convinced that moore's fabulously lucrative limited-hang-out ("we should have invaded saudi arabia instead") is really doing more good than harm in the long run.
the argument that gray is risking it all is purely speculative. there are so very many examples from the past which show that one cannot rely on this argument on faith. when daniel ellsberg leaked the pentagon papers, one could say that he was a self-sacrificing hero, risking it all and throwing his fate to the wind. but research by douglas valentine and others has since shown that this leak was actually desired and vetted by higher powers in the establishment who wanted to divert scrutiny away from the CIA and towards the pentagon. ellsberg may or may not have known this, but he and several others involved in the leak all went on to become members of the CFR and hold other establishment positions. hmm. similarly, one could have imagined that a young john kerry was risking it all and giving the finger to his boston brahmin roots when he became a major figure in the vietman anti-war movement. but look where he is now! there are lingering questions about what the young skull-and-bones member's motives really were. and there are many today who still buy into the myth that popular philosopher and author bertrand russell became an estranged black sheep from the aristocracy when he took up his "pacifist" activism. they have never read the "fine print" of russell's career to find out what he really represented: http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/russell.html many in the 9/11 truth movement think that russell should be its model... just goes to show how frighteningly behind the curve people are in understanding how subtle the manipulation and infiltration of popular movements can be, and how exacting and unbending our watchdog efforts need to be in turn.
[note: i would also add the gray's quite recent harrassment lawsuits against journalists who have published articles questioning his 'credentials' do not in my eyes indicate someone who is currently in a mood to throw his career to the wind...]
7 -- I for one welcome those people who have "names" who are willing to step up to the plate. If they are not perfectly informed (who among us is?), if their bona fides are not exactly as we would wish (if John's Ph.D. can be questioned, how about those of us with no degrees?), I don't see these as reasons their help should not be welcomed.
i would not associate myself with someone who is lacking in moral integrity to the point that he not only misrepresents his credentials to a mass audience WHO ARE CHANGING THEIR OWN BEHAVIOR AND RELATIONSHIPS BASED ON THE ASSURANCE OF HIS EXPERTISE, but also launches bullying harrassment lawsuits against small-time independent journalists and writers who discuss the facts. here is gray displaying his benign "truth seeker" mindset concerning his critics:
http://www.insideedition.com/investigative/johngray.htm
but unfortunately, this nasty tenaciousness doesn't seem to apply to the deep political and economic system implicated in the 9/11 scandal -- gray says we should be preparing to "forgive the government" after weeding about a few bad apples with bad male brain chemistry.
a view that i don't see as "helping" our movement. on the contrary, it's horribly disempowering.
8 -- John is helping out financially with various aspects of the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my own case there are no gifts. The money has to be paid back. But there is risk involved. Those willing to invest in risky ventures are normally accorded accolades in our entrepreneurial-oriented economy.
so?
9 -- In the last while I see what could be construed as a campaign to divide 9/11 skeptics. It may not be an orchestrated campaign, but it might as well be.
so zwicker feels that all the checking he needs to do to settle any questions about gray is to skim a couple articles and say "i just can't see it", but it's ok to accuse gray's critics of sinister ill intent based on no evidence at all. what a marvelous double-standard.
10 -- My own approach is to avoid attacking others who are going in the same general direction, unless and until they prove themselves inauthentic and/or destructively disruptive. We need to keep our energies focussed on moving ahead...whether we are Michael Moore, or any of those reading this, or John Gray.
here is the same crypto-totalitarian mantra -- no internal criticism is allowed, and will smeared as "attacks"; those who rock the boat are trying to divide us, and the only way we can succeed is by dropping criticism and watchdog efforts, and adopt a muddy-headed standard "everybody is right as long as we all feel good".
11 -- We can, I hope, stand questioning among ourselves as to strategies and tactics and philosophies. Our backgrounds and who we associate with are also not necessarily irrelevant.
yes, indeed. so why do points 1-10 contradict this ethic in so many ways?
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/vseplB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org OM
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
www.ctrl.org DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
