re: rkm posting policy


Richard Moore


Wow!  So many responses. There were over twenty - and nearly all of 
them strongly supportive. I'll give you two examples and then continue
with a few comments...
        Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 11:00:02 +0100
        From: rm
        To: •••@••.•••
        Subject: rkm posting policy
                  just a quick note in support of your last mail. i don't think
        that it is highly significant that there are other theories in
        abundance concerning katrina, if anything your postings are a
        welcome counterpoint to this abundance. even by drawing
        attention to inconsistencies within the corporate press' line
        you are doing a valuable service.
            i don't think you ever have claimed absolute truth, i don't
        personally believe in any truth external of emic reality, all
        theories will inevitably be shaped by the subjectivities of
        their authors.
            having an alternate theory, even if one is to reject it,
        reminds us of the contingency of any belief system. not only
        that, but it provides an exercise in intellectual freedom,
        something which i think is always healthy. absolutism of all
        kinds is very dangerous.
            keep up the good work
        From: BEGoodman
        Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 09:26:00 EDT
        Subject: Re: rkm posting policy
        To: •••@••.•••
              Richard, you are magnificent!!
            Even I have slipped into the trap of "incompetence" rather
        than it being part of an overall plan.  We tend to not give
        enough credit to these people presently 'in charge' of our
            I like your perspective.  Those who do not are to be pitied
        for their shortsightedness.
            I often come across people who are incredulous at what I
        reveal to them, and, even when faced with hard questions to
        back up these findings, still have to digest the extent to
        which this country has fallen into the traps set for them by
        the neocons.  It takes awhile, but, I feel, little by little,
        we are getting through to them the extent to which we are all
        being 'taken for a ride' !!
            Again, I feel privileged to be emailing with you!!  I have had
        EXPERTS in the field who have thanked me for what I forward to
        them, and yours is certainly high on that list!

The fact is that I use my own judgement in what I write and
what I forward. Even if most of the feedback had been
negative, I wouldn't be able, in good conscience, to change
what I do. My delight in your responses is not because I think
they 'validate' my perspective, but rather because they show
that my work is useful to you, or at least most of you.

My intention is to continue with my work, and not take more of
our time with posting-policy discussions. In closing, I'll
share one negative response I received regarding the Hurricane
Andrew posting, and comment on that...

      RS: Even category 5 hurricanes don't generate 214 mph winds,
        much less 350 mph. Why should we take seriously an article
        that makes such claims in its first paragraph? Where did the
        author obtain information about these wind speeds? The
        exactness of the first figure is also extremely dubious.
        Sorry, but this sure looks like fiction to me, and I refuse to
        waste time reading the rest of it. You seem strongly inclined
        to believe any wild conspiratorial view you come across, not
        bothering  to consider its source or look for critiques of it
        or alternative views.

The fellow who wrote about Andrew claims to be an ordinary
resident, a survivor, and he is allegedly reporting his own
personal experiences. He does not claim to be a weather expert
or a journalist. His estimates of wind speeds might be
uneducated guesses, or perhaps they were rumors he heard. I
don't think such comments by him are relevant to, nor do they
detract from, his account of his own eyewitness experiences.
If anything, they add credibility because they indicate honest
naivete. Similarly, if he had made racist comments as part of
his report, I would ignore that in my evaluation of the
report's credibility. What he writes may indeed be a hoax, but
his comments on wind speeds would not be an important element
in the case against him. A jury would probably be instructed
to disregard such 'non-expert' testimony.

RS's use of the word "wild" is interesting: it shows the power
of the Matrix. The Matrix deluges us with its own
interpretations of 'what the world is about', reinforced by
news, films, documentaries, talk shows, and popular TV series.
It is so all pervasive and consistent that we are encouraged
to see anything that radically disagrees as being "wild". Our
propaganda spinners are using cognitive dissonance as a
means of thought control.

I am inclined to consider seriously reports that are
consistent with what I have come to understand about how the
world really works, but you'd be surprised at how many of
those reports I reject. Those I select do not represent a
knee-jerk reaction in favor of anything conspiratorial.

As regards knee-jerk reactions, it seems to me that dismissing
as "wild", and not even reading, a story on such a flimsy
basis (wind speed guesses) represents an illogical knee-jerk
need to avoid cognitive dissonance. 

At the same time, I respect such reactions, and I'm glad people 
like RS are subscribers and that they take the time to send in 
their comments, which I usually respond to privately.