Educate-Yourself
The Freedom of Knowledge, The Power of Thought ©
Letters to The Editor

Facts, Not Rhetoric
http://educate-yourself.org/lte/factsnotrhetoric5nov02.shtml
Nov. 5, 2002

 ----- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Beatty <pbeatty@nyc.rr.com>
To: Editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 12:00 PM
 

ONLY ON THE INTERNET CAN SOMEONE ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THEIR OWN OPINIONS TOTALLY LED BY THE COPY AND PASTES OF OTHER'S OPINIONS FROM THEIR BOOKS AND SITES.

TELL ME AGAIN, WHAT WAS YOUR OPINION? WHERE DID YOUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE COME FROM IN THIS MATTER? WHEN I WAS YOUNGER AND SPENT TIME CARING, I WOULD HAVE CALLED THIS GOSSIP. WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? THE BRISK?

THERE HAS TO BE AN INDIVIDUAL SOMEWHERE IN THERE. I JUST KNOW IT.

DAVID GOT MOST OF HIS INFORMATION FROM THE INTERNET, TOO. AS I RECALL, FROM 'CHANNELERS', A WELL KNOWN EXACT METHOD OF INTERJECTION INTO REALITY, IN THE ONE PIECE THAT HE WROTE THAT I READ. OF COURSE I'M SURE THAT MUCH OF IT WAS COPY AND PASTE.

CAN YOU PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO WARN US WHEN YOU COPY AND PASTE, I DO WHEN I EVEN BORROW FROM MY OWN WORKS.

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORT. AT LEAST THE SUBSCRIBER WHO SENT THIS TO ME HAD THE DECENCY TO WRITE THEIR OWN PIECE TOTALLY RELIANT ON THEIR OWN MIND'S, EVALUATIONS, AND THE REVERENCE FOR THE ABILITY TO THINK INDEPENDENTLY. THANKFULLY, YOU OFFERED THEM THE PLATFORM FOR THIS.
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Editor <Editor@educate-yourself.org >
To: Patricia Beatty <pbeatty@nyc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 1:08 PM
Subject: Re:

Dear Patricia,

Do you always send letters without addressing the person you are writing to and not signing your name at the end? Just wondering, since you're in such a chastising and finger-wagging mode ( or should I say dog-wagging ? ).

So, let's begin from the beginning.

1. What are you talking about here?

2. What copy and paste are you refering to?

3. Do you know the difference between citing reference sources and stating opinions?

4. Are you accusing me of copying other people's writings  and then claiming authorship in this poorly written diatribe?

5. When you write "David", are you refering to David Icke?

6. And finally, do you know the difference between the uses of upper and lower case letters?

I, and my entire Letters readership, await your response (which I'm sure will be a pillar of erudition) with tense anticipation.

Sincerely, Ken

---- Original Message -----
From: Patricia Beatty
To: Editor
Sent: Wednesday, November 06, 2002 4:47 PM
Subject: Re:
 

>Dear Patricia,

>Do you always send letters without addressing the person you are writing to and not signing your name at the >end?

Obviously, you had my name; it's right in your address to me. Overwhelming enough, that's the first problem solved, however my full name is in the signature above. I hid nothing the first go round.

>Just wondering, since you're in such a chastising and finger-wagging mode ( or should I say dog-wagging ? ).

 Say what you would like to say, I believe thatís your God given right on the Internet placing me in this role. Correct? You said what you wanted and Iíve said what I wanted. Itís was then your go round and now, itís all back in my court.

>So, let's begin from the beginning.

I agree my platform obviously doesnít leave me with the expectation of always having an audience that agrees with everything I say my audience is more discriminate. Maybe your's needs to practice a little discriminatory

>1. What are you talking about here?

I wrote this where I found it, attached to the NWO. Your address came up with the prompt. If you aren't

>2. What copy and paste are you referring to?

Over the past three weeks, in seeking information on things like the NOW, Iíve found the same reports over and over again. I'm very aware of and realize that it's not the same issue at hand as the concept that George Bush Sr. seemed to find enough to salivate over when he said the words as though he were in the know and control of all of those standing accused of penning this new issue that actually began in 1924 in Germany. Agreed, there were changes and additions over the years.

 He was no more versed on the subject then I've discovered from others all over the Internet but I donít believe anyone has ever substantiated that his strain of inherent DNA was the main contributor for the Noble Prize winners of America. He was another wannabe and believe me, his family is as rejective as many others in this self-seeking group who are such elitist. Smoke and mirrors. Things that you can throw out to mom and pop and never worry that they will ever come back to see if you really know what you are talking about. When you finally comprehend what you have been doing, I would love to be available to see the flush on your faces. The New World Order of Intelligence applauds you for doing exactly what they expected you to do. The best cover, tell the truth, and parade it in the muck of those who fringe paranoid fronts of potential calamity and the hopes of total change in the future.

I've read that there are 64,000 black helicopters in this country alone like kittens in a litter, that are being manufactured at a rate far in excess of field mice.

Where are they when you need them? Where do they store them? Who maintains them? My experience suggests that it's harder then any of you might suspect to get the privilege of borrowing one of these fantasy black helicopters that obviously are all stored underground in droves. Hope that we never have a real emergency in which you need one as you could come up empty handed. Where were they on 9/11? I was right here and strange enough, almost never saw a helicopter. Were they all created with an MIB in mind? Have you met a real MIB? Check out their tailors, believe me, you'll be amazed at the savings. The helicopters do exist, just not in the multiples that many of these sites suggest. Did you realize that there are sanctioned CIA smaller airports all over the country where these helicopters fly? There is an actual list if you dig for it.

 Sure, it all hides behind the illusive screen of cloaking, I forgot. Gosh, don't know what we would do if we didn't have that old excuse.

>3. Do you know the difference between citing reference sources and stating opinions?

Extraordinarily enough, I'm fully aware of this sectioning and crediting which I feel that often on the Internet takes up far more room then the actual piece at question. However, the person that takes on the responsibility of writing this type of documentation better have something on their own to offer as the first step of clinching their audience. When someone writes an entire article based on the information found in multiples of other articles, how different are they from Bill Cooper? I'll tell you, he's dead and they are alive or at least, breathing. I never saw a thing that the man wrote that he wrote. Everything was old news that came from old news that came from old news. Some of this information was available in the early 1980's, no truer then as it is now, and he quoted it as though it had happened yesterday. This keeps happening and it's not right. Give us something real that's new.

>4. Are you accusing me of copying other people's writings and then claiming authorship in this poorly written >diatribe?

Can you please tell me where you have gleaned information on these families other then through the work of others? I asked before and I ask again. Have you had any personal knowledge of this pact between the 13 families who admit lineage? I have and I will tell you this, the Internet is not a good source to find this information. What I've discovered over the few weeks that I finally breached my own refusal to use this as a reference is that it's all the same rhetoric, time after time.

One of the most beautiful sites on the internet that I've found today is a conspiracy site called ConspiracyArchive.com, in which they are so "part right, part wrong" about their information. Nevertheless, the government should hire this developer to create his or her own sites as this one puts theirs to shame. Moreover, it is a "he" as he does list his name once but with no link back to thanking him for what he offered in a beautiful format. Much of his information is correct, however, it's not apples to apples as heís mixing different groups under one heading that just donít relate.

I suggest that you actually go back 3500 years to when this all began and see if you can enlighten all of us including me with the information that you find.

Oh, that's correct! This is a secret organization that doesn't permit us full discovery. Well, assuming that you are what you pretend to be, that's your job, walk right around them, utilizing your press pass and see how well you do. Strange, in doing that, I was flooded with the real information and I had the best of platforms in DC to verify my resource. The difference is that my life began with these same people when they use to help my father to move from camp to camp while he was in the OSS and a very young man attempting to pass his Germanic looks off as a Jew imprisoned in these camps to glean troop movement information. In my long life I've discovered that nothing is as it appears. History must reclaim some of the realities that it ignored and sites that only repeat what others say owe it to their audience to at least try to find something new to say.

>5. When you write "David", are you referring to David Icke?

Yes, I've seen his site once and when it began to quote a British Channeler for his source on Reptilians, I gave up. Great market but nothing new there, is there? These reptilians are just another source of presented memories in the New World Order in which all of us are being shot up with massive doses of radiation through the variable methods of doing so as suggested over the Internet.

These people that you wrote about are being chastised with charges of anti-Semitic definitions, which isn't true, at all. You would be amazed at how many Jews have been involved in the issue at hand, people who wear their tattoos on their arms and who worked diligently to remove other Jews and Christians from concentration camps.

Where is that in your documentation that seems to be bent on offering the newest in sensationalism? Name names. Name dates. Name credence. Give us something that says that your information isn't supposition, and fantasy. If I write a chapter in a book in which I make accusations about a group of people I had better be ready to back it up. Don't you agree? Isn't that what I'm doing right now, defending my stance against my accusations in your column? You've demanded it. Frankly, new to this, I had no idea that it would be publicly aired but not for my shame but yours. I would have forgone that if I was more aware of that reality and I'm apologizing but as you see, I have no fear of facing and explaining what I'm suggesting. Your group is not by any means the only doing this and I found good on your site as I said from the beginning, but my feeling is that you and your own have private needs and dreams in which you too can begin to write and fill up the net with your good works.

Conspiracy can be anything, but I would like you to back it up and stop treating it as though it's just another link in which you have added it to make sure that you coverd all of the bases for every rant that is now creating chaos in our world.

When you create a demigod of a cavernous embodiment of humanity, you empower others to hide behind it making decisions for all of us. That's called government.

Prove it to us. Prove that there is a group of elitist who want to destroy a major part of this world to enable them to rule it by some new order of totalitarianism.. That's where you begin or you suffer the accusations that I've thrown at you.  Each site says the same things. Over and over again, they all sit about talking about things that they are surmising at based on what they have read somewhere else. Why? There are far too many wannabes on the Internet and this may get them closer to becoming BE's, but not in my world.

>6. Finally, do you know the difference between the uses of upper and lower case letters?

Recently, I went to a site in which I was warned that utilizing all upper case letters suggests that I'm screaming. Taking this into account, I screamed at the fact that if you can't prove what you are saying and add something new, then please stop attempting to create an impact between your "public" and your supplier of information. I will welcome anything that you can offer by way of proof of these accusations. You have my address; please feel free to contact me with that proof.

For many years I've been a journalist with a major news media service that put me in the flow of information. Now, I'm writing a book about the information that I sought out first hand. I'm establishing that I do have valuable information each time that I write and don't expect to send a puppy in circles chasing their own tail.

>I, and my entire Letters readership, await your response (which I'm sure will be a pillar of erudition) with tense >anticipation.

Let me explain, your entire readership should be as offended as I am. They could be the brunt of the next conspiracy in the minds of your masses, and they will want the same advantages, clean and concise information that allows the reader a chance to verify the information not the rhetoric source. If I go to these different sources, they will in turn send me to the next source that they relied on. Why not go to these people and squarely ask them to tell the truth? First of all the Illuminati has nothing to do with these people. The groups go by different lodge names, not by the Illuminati. They are so far from followers of the occult that they must laugh daily when they read these accusations.

For once offer us truth, not embezzlement. Facts, not rhetoric. Resourcing, not copying. And lastly, get the information correct before you extrapolate another false impression that only separates the masses that much more corrupting the minds of those who may one day decide they've had enough as they pick up their rifle to change their luck.

Apathy is the greatest of all sins; sloth is the greatest of all losses.

Very sincerely,

Patricia Beatty, it appears on the original message that you claimed was unsigned.

>Sincerely, Ken

----- Original Message -----
From: Editor <Editor@educate-yourself.org >
To: Patricia Beatty <pbeatty@nyc.rr.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2002 12:34 AM
Subject: Re:

Dear Patricia,

I was thinking you might respond with a book, and voila-  you did!

I'll keep my responses relatively short in order to save the reader's energy, which they'll need to wade through your contentious verbosity, since you write in such a 'clipped' style and aren't too particular when it comes to completing a sentence or using verbs, nouns and adjectives in the manner suggested in English grammar books.

I'll start from the end of your book and work towards the beginning.

1.    " Patricia Beatty, it appears on the original message that you claimed was unsigned. "

"Signing" refers to appending your name to the end of a letter. It does not refer to the return address on the envelope or the 'From" line in electronic mail. The only place the name Patricia Beatty appears is in the 'From' line of the E mail message. For a few centuries now, it's been the custom in the western world to sign mail or letters at the END of the letter. Most people have kept up the tradition using electronic mail. Perhaps you've noticed.

You say in the beginning of your book that I already knew your name from the E mail address, but it is possible (and not uncommon) to use someone else's computer to send an E mail, isn't it? So, how can I know with certainty that the message is from the author of the letter unless the author signs his or her name to it?  I had to address my response to "Patricia" because that's the only name I had to go on, but it's not the same thing as signing a letter and taking responsibility for the contents of same, despite your tortured attempts to justify yourself.

2. " Prove it to us. Prove that there is a group of elitist who want to destroy a major part of this world to enable them to rule it by some new order of totalitarianism.. That's where you begin or you suffer the accusations that I've thrown at you.  Each site says the same things. Over and over again, they all sit about talking about things that they are surmising at based on what they have read somewhere else. Why? There are far too many wannabes on the Internet and this may get them closer to becoming BE's, but not in my world. ."

Your book here is simply overflowing with these sophomoric baiting tactics. For a person who claims to "know" the inside track on the Illuminati and the NWO (not "NOW", by the way ), it's not possible that you can be this naive or stupid. As if it's just a matter of dogged investigative reportage: just pin Kissinger's or Rockefeller's ears to the wall and make them reveal all before you twist their tail again. Give me a break.

Yes, you've must have been a splendid.. "journalist with a major news media service that put me in the flow of information". Anyone who writes with such 'convictions' as you hold, certainly writes with a clarity, crispness of thought, and depth of perception that can only be hewn from years of experience with mainstream corporate media. What happened, by the way? Did they let you go because of your 'way' with English grammar?

3.  Apparently, according to you, everyone who has ever written on the NWO, from Bill Cooper to David Icke, is a fake and a hack, except YOU, of course. You know the Real Deal. Some of your statements about Bill Cooper are nothing short of stunning. For example,
 
A) "When someone writes an entire article based on the information found in multiples of other articles, how different are they from Bill Cooper? I'll tell you, he's dead and they are alive or at least, breathing"...Huh? Does this come with a translation??

 B) "I never saw a thing that the man wrote that he wrote"....Really? Did you  peruse the  Majic 12, 'Above Top Secret Report' that he writes about in his book, Behold A Pale Horse, while he worked for Naval Intelligence over three decades ago? Was Bill Cooper a writer of novels or fiction? You have this extremely odd notion that people like Cooper or Icke are somehow disqualified by reporting the words of others in support of their thesis.  What's wrong with you? That's the nature of investigation and reportage; reporting what others have written or said and connecting the dots to arrive at a conclusion. You may quibble with the reporting, or the veracity of the source, or the logic of the conclusion, but to dismiss the very nature of investigative reporting itself is rather twisted, to state it as politely as possible.

It's completely transparent that you've never read Bill Cooper's book nor the books of David Icke. Nevertheless, you have the unbridled effrontery to accuse Bill Cooper, whose life had been in jeopardy on  numerous occasions due to his "old news of old news" revelations, of being a hack, when YOU, an unknown person without any demonstration of substantive output such as  books, articles,  public lectures, or even a web site, now sets herself up as High Priestess in charge of criticism and judgment of Bill Cooper's courageous efforts. Patricia, you don't qualify to lick Bill Cooper's spit off the sidewalk.

Of course, you've been to David Icke's web site ONCE and that certainly qualifies you to dismiss his 10 years of prolific output as hacked. You read of a channeler as "his source on reptilians" and that's that; end of the story. ( "... I gave up. Great market but nothing new there, is there? ").  Whew! (Do you carry your six shooters low on your hips or at mid waist?)

Here again, you've allowed your arrogance and braggadocio to surge far ahead of the facts.  David Icke devoted most of the 480 pages that make up his SEVENTH BOOK "The Biggest Secret", to the topic of reptilian aliens. Apparently the names of Arizona Wilder, Credo Muta, and Cathy O'Brian, among a host of other first hand witnesses quoted in Icke's book,  hold no significance for you.

4. You keep referring to "my platform" and your "readers". Patricia, exactly where or what is your "platform"? Where might I locate it? Where are your fine discriminatory readers to be located? I want to view what they are viewing. How can I do that?

5. I'm not going to write a book in response to your book. I'll let the readers at my web site decide the merits of your arguments based on your own words. However, I will summarize the theme of your attitude concerning the NWO.  According to you:

A) Everyone on the Internet and in print is a hack, copying and re-copying "old news". You, on the other hand, know the inside scoop, but mysteriously fail to inform us why or how you should be privy to such high level secrets.

B)  This is an very EMOTIONAL topic for you, that's why you wrote you first E mail in all caps. You're angry. The question is why?  You are quickly stirred up about Icke and Cooper, etc., sharply dismissing them without ever having really studied their work carefully. Again, the question is why ? You keep referring to me in a collective vein, as if I'm part of a larger group. You write that you can't wait to see "your faces". Who are the other people that you are lumping me together with? Has it ever occured to you that you might have a psychological issue here?

C) Your said that your father worked for the OSS. It's well known that the CIA and other intel groups, including military intel, involve the entire family of employees in their machinations, and not just the "employee". You DO have a lot of inside information about the NWO and Illuminati, I'm quite sure, but you are not revealing HOW you came upon that knowledge. And that's really the crux of the matter, isn't it?

You write in every way like another Barbara Hartwell, a former TV media person, with a CIA family background and mind controlled to the hilt. She's  also full of anger towards the most accurate researchers who write or lecture about the Illuminati, while lauding the disinfo boys as being her 'true friends'.

Do you think you're ready to talk about mind control and intel family members in your next book?

Sincerely,  Ken
 



Free Newsletter

Email Address:


Join the Educate-Yourself Discussion Forum

All information posted on this web site is the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only. It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer of your choice for medical care and advice.